# Best World War II Aircraft?



## Aggie08 (Mar 23, 2006)

I know i already posted this same thing a month or two ago, but has this been figured out yet?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 23, 2006)

No, and it never will be.

As a question it's WAY too open

Best plane at what? For what mission? At what time? Against what opposition?

What category? Are we talking fighters, bombers, recon, attack, seaplanes or all of the above?

For instance, it might be said that the Me-262 was the best plane of the war. But the P-51D and P-47N were far better long range escorts, the IL-2, Il-10 and Hs-129 were superior attack aircraft and the B-17, Lancster, B024, Halifax, Pe-8 were much better bombers and most other fighters were far superior dogfighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2006)

Best WW2 "PLANE." I would assume all around - yes this has been discussed before and its simple - 
*
THE C-47!!!!*


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 23, 2006)

Pretty much the common answer right there....


----------



## Twitch (Mar 23, 2006)

PT-17!!! Gotta train 'em in sumthin'!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2006)

Twitch said:


> PT-17!!! Gotta train 'em in sumthin'!!


I'd put the PT-17 in the top 5....


----------



## evangilder (Mar 23, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Twitch said:
> 
> 
> > PT-17!!! Gotta train 'em in sumthin'!!
> ...



Yep, and of course the AT-6/SNJ Texan/Harvard up high as well

I am in complete agreement of the C-47.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

you guys are so biased


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you guys are so biased



Nope - you guys used the C-47 as well!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

no i meant more about the trainers, just as many commonwealth airmen (and women) were trained on tiger moths than american trainers.........


----------



## evangilder (Mar 23, 2006)

Well, the Brits also used the Harvard. But the Tiger Moth is also one of the greats.


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 23, 2006)

I voted the hurricane, if britain had fallen it is generally agreed the war would have been lost. Did that rank?


----------



## Sal Monella (Mar 23, 2006)

"if britain had fallen it is generally agreed the war would have been lost."

On a more positive note, the Germans would have been credited with wiping out tooth decay and gingivitis.


----------



## Henk (Mar 23, 2006)

Hurricane against a Fw-190, never. Hurricane VS the Fw-190, I would say the Fw-190 depending on the pilot, but we are not talking about that now.

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

i think it would be generally accepted that the -190 would beat a hurricane, there is one hell of an age difference between them though!


----------



## Henk (Mar 23, 2006)

Excuse me, the Hurricane were in the battle of Briton and so were the Fw-190. The Fw-190 were in the later part of the war but the Hurricane were still there.

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2006)

the Fw-190 never took part in the battle of britain, and by the time the -190 was in service most hurricanes were replaced by spits and sent out to the med or asia........


----------



## Henk (Mar 23, 2006)

You know lanc they did a study the other day and they found that the Hurricane won the battle of Briton and not the Spitfire, there were to few of them to be able to win it. The Fw-190 were already in action in September 1941, to be precise 6 September 1941.

Henk


----------



## grumman-cats (Mar 23, 2006)

talk about the bias opinion. Just face it guys, if it was built by grumman it was great. end of discussion, no need to debate anymore. There's just nothing better than that.


----------



## Henk (Mar 23, 2006)

IF YOU THINK SO ! ! ! !

Henk


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 23, 2006)

That's why I say hurricane, not because it was the best fighter out there but because it performed when it was needed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 23, 2006)

> On a more positive note, the Germans would have been credited with wiping out tooth decay and gingivitis.


I just gotta give props for that one.... Sal, u get the Golden Ticket for that one, had me laugh out loud on that....


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 24, 2006)

That was pretty good...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2006)

> You know lanc they did a study the other day and they found that the Hurricane won the battle of Briton and not the Spitfire, there were to few of them to be able to win it.



yeah i knew that, i was just saying the Fw-190 didn't meet the hurricane in the BoB..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

Kiddies, I think you need to think outside the box and leave the combat aircraft behind. Other surveys have elected the C-47 because of its role in delivering troops, supplies, towing gliders and its ability to fly the Hump. Eisenhower even said the C-47 was one of the most important weapons of WW2 - Then look at its post war longevity It's still flying!!!!

The C-47 also possessed capabilities to fly easily in IFR conditions and was probably one of the better equipped aircraft with this capability.

I know it isn't glamorous to say the "Best" aircraft of WW2 isn't a combat aircraft, but the C-47 accomplished more and flown more miles than entire combat aircraft fleets combined!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2006)

Henk said:


> The Fw-190 were already in action in September 1941, to be precise 6 September 1941.
> 
> Henk



Sadly about a year too late for the BoB 


C-47 is a logical choice...


----------



## netudki (Mar 24, 2006)

Spiti, of course. It was used from 1939 to 1945, in almost all of roles (interceptor,fighter-bomber, carrier fighter, reconnaissance, trainer, escort fighter, seaplane fighter, long-range escort fighter), in all of the theater of II WW. The Spiti shot down last german, the Seafire shot down the last japanese aircraft. 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

netudki said:


> Spiti, of course. It was used from 1939 to 1945, in almost all of roles (interceptor,fighter-bomber, carrier fighter, reconnaissance, trainer, escort fighter, seaplane fighter, long-range escort fighter), in all of the theater of II WW. The Spiti shot down last german, the Seafire shot down the last japanese aircraft. 8)



Yea but could tow a glider, carry 20 soldiers and fly on one engine?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

Welcome to the site netudki.

That is a good argument for the Spitfire.

I personally go with the C-47 only because of its role in the logistical side of the war. Without the Allies would not have been able to supply and keep there troops fighting.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> netudki said:
> 
> 
> > Spiti, of course. It was used from 1939 to 1945, in almost all of roles (interceptor,fighter-bomber, carrier fighter, reconnaissance, trainer, escort fighter, seaplane fighter, long-range escort fighter), in all of the theater of II WW. The Spiti shot down last german, the Seafire shot down the last japanese aircraft. 8)
> ...



How many other engines is a Spit gonna fly on?


----------



## netudki (Mar 24, 2006)

To FLYBOYJ
No but it could carry a barrel of beer without any conversation! And of course it could fly with only one engine!!!!!
Thanks DerAdlerIstGelandet


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

netudki said:


> To FLYBOYJ
> No but it could carry a barrel of beer without any conversation! And of course it could fly with only one engine!!!!!
> Thanks DerAdlerIstGelandet


 welcome!!


----------



## netudki (Mar 24, 2006)

> Welcome to the site netudki.
> 
> That is a good argument for the Spitfire.
> 
> I personally go with the C-47 only because of its role in the logistical side of the war. Without the Allies would not have been able to supply and keep there troops fighting.



Its true, but without defending, these C-47 are worth nothing! In the siege of Burma in 1944 Spiti VIII defended the transport a/c-s and the Japanese fighters could shot down only 3 C-47.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

netudki said:


> > Welcome to the site netudki.
> >
> > That is a good argument for the Spitfire.
> >
> ...



In the beginning of the war C-47s and C-46s were rarely escorted in the PTO....


----------



## netudki (Mar 24, 2006)

In the beginning of the war the C-47s weren't so important then in the ending phase. Anyway, I think nobody can win the war only with transport aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

netudki said:


> In the beginning of the war the C-47s weren't so important then in the ending phase. Anyway, I think nobody can win the war only with transport aircraft.


No, and you can't win one without one - a good one!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

Just look at the mass tonnage of supplies they carried. Dont forget the airborne drops into Normany.

I look at this way, there is more to fighting a war than just the weapons. One thing I have learned since being in the Military is you have to have support so that you can do your mission. I would not have been able to fly day in and day out without food, water, medical supplies and what.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just look at the mass tonnage of supplies they carried. Dont forget the airborne drops into Normany.
> 
> I look at this way, there is more to fighting a war than just the weapons. One thing I have learned since being in the Military is you have to have support so that you can do your mission. I would not have been able to fly day in and day out without food, water, medical supplies and what.


Amen!

And the fact that the C-47 did its job so well on all fronts by all participants (the Japenese even had their version) says something for the aircraft....

All round its got to be the best aircraft of WW2 and probably the greatest aircraft ever built!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 24, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> One thing I have learned since being in the Military is you have to have support so that you can do your mission.


You said it, bro.


----------



## netudki (Mar 24, 2006)

OK its true so the good old C-47 won the war. But I can imagine a new Spiti, with a box for 10 soldiers and the beer.....


----------



## evangilder (Mar 24, 2006)

netudki said:


> Spiti, of course. It was used from 1939 to 1945, in almost all of roles (interceptor,fighter-bomber, carrier fighter, reconnaissance, trainer, escort fighter, seaplane fighter, long-range escort fighter), in all of the theater of II WW. The Spiti shot down last german, the Seafire shot down the last japanese aircraft. 8)



The last aerial engagement in the war in Europe did not involve fighter aircraft actually. The last aerial battle was fought between a Fiesler Storch and a Piper L-4.



> The pinnacle of the Grasshopper's career as a warplane came on April 12, 1945, when pilot Duane Francies and observer William Martin, flying an L-4 named Miss Me downed a low-flying German Fieseler Storch observation aircraft with their .45-caliber pistols. Author Cornelius Ryan describes the action:
> 
> By radio Martin reported that they had spotted a German plane and announced calmly "we are about to give combat." On the ground, astounded 5th Armored tankers, hearing Martin's call, craned their necks skyward searching out the impending dogfight.
> 
> ...


----------



## grumman-cats (Mar 24, 2006)

I have to agree with you c-47 guys. the airplane is really adaptable to just about any mission, wheather that's carring troops, towing gliders, flying the hump to deliver crucial supplies or being turned into a gunship later in its career. It's an amazing, tough, and versatile aircraft. You would think that it was designed by grumman aerospace.


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 24, 2006)

haha, can you now imagine ten drunk soldiers onboard said spit?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2006)

grumman-cats said:


> I have to agree with you c-47 guys. the airplane is really adaptable to just about any mission, wheather that's carring troops, towing gliders, flying the hump to deliver crucial supplies or being turned into a gunship later in its career. It's an amazing, tough, and versatile aircraft. You would think that it was designed by grumman aerospace.



A DC-2 wing was placed on a DC-3 and it even dropped bombs....


----------



## evangilder (Mar 24, 2006)

And remember that there were a couple of bombers born out of the C-47 program, The B-18/Digby and the B-23 Dragon were all based from the DC-2/DC-3 development.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

netudki said:


> OK its true so the good old C-47 won the war. But I can imagine a new Spiti, with a box for 10 soldiers and the beer.....



No the C-47 was just a small part of the puzzle.


----------



## SpitTrop (Mar 27, 2006)

This is really simple; without the Spitfire, Hurricane and radar combo in 1940, there would have been no role for the C-47! The war in the west would have been lost! 
The UK would have been under German rule (seems to be now with the number of BMW's and Mercs about!) so where would the allies have liberated Europe from - New York? No, so why do you need the C-47? 
Before you can start using transport planes you have to clear the sky of the enemy first! 
A transport plane is just a luxury you can use when you are winning via air supremacy, ask the Germans about using transport planes to supply Stalingrad........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

SpitTrop said:


> This is really simple; without the Spitfire, Hurricane and radar combo in 1940, there would have been no role for the C-47! The war in the west would have been lost!
> The UK would have been under German rule (seems to be now with the number of BMW's and Mercs about!) so where would the allies have liberated Europe from - New York? No, so why do you need the C-47?
> Before you can start using transport planes you have to clear the sky of the enemy first!
> A transport plane is just a luxury you can use when you are winning via air supremacy, ask the Germans about using transport planes to supply Stalingrad........


I don't think you were ever in the military to understand the value of a transport aircraft let alone the C-47. Yes ,the Spits and Hurricanes fought off the Luftwaffe, that was one major battle. To invade Europe and WIN THE WAR things had to be moved logistically - the C-47 accomplished that role magnificently as well as moving troops and gliders - Without the movement of troops and supplies the war would of been over!!!!

Other transport aircraft did not have the ability to carry the equipment the required distances and offload it like the C-47..

In the Pacific, bases had to be continually supplied - without this there would of been no fuel parts, material and people to make it happen and again it was the C-47 that made it happen.....

The C-47 is still used today by 3rd world nations and small operators, a tribute to its longevity...


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 27, 2006)

SpitTrop said:


> A transport plane is just a luxury you can use when you are winning via air supremacy, ask the Germans about using transport planes to supply Stalingrad........


I guess if the germans had the Dak or C47 maybe they wouldn't have lost Stalingrad the Berlin Airlift kept the whole city of Berlin supplied and used a whole whack of C47s the Germans had nothing even close to the C47 and if you can't get that spare part right away your combat a/c is now just a ground target


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

The Stalingrad airlift was attempted with improper planning, accomplished during horrible weather with aircraft that were not capable of doing the job. If Germany had C-47s 2 out of the 3 would of still doomed the mission...

Transport aircraft are far from a "luxury." they are a vital piece of military equipment to keep all forces supplied and a ground army moving. 

The Douglas DC-3/ C-47 was an easy flying aircraft, had features which enabled it to be quickly loaded and unloaded by minimal amounts of "Loadmasters," had the ability to carry more troops SAFELY than any other WW2 transport, and lastly was one of the most advanced "instrument" aircraft of WW2 - In my opinion only the Lancaster was a better inclement weather aircraft.

Eisenhower said it himself - the C-47 as one of the four machines that won World War II, along with the bulldozer, 6x6 truck, and the landing craft.


----------



## Henk (Mar 27, 2006)

The Junkers 52 were a great airlift aircraft and it were great when it came to freight. Like Flyboyj said it were bad planning and the improper use of the equipment.

Remember also how many C-47 there were in WW2 and how many the US could produce. I agree with you when you say that the C-47 is a great aircraft.

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

The Ju-52 in all actuallity is a marvelous aircraft. Very robust and very reliable. There are several Tante Ju's still flying in Germany. One is owned by Lufthansa, I actually saw it at the Frankfurt Airport when I flew out of there last week. I wish I had my camara available. Unfortunatly I packed it in my suit case.

The C-47 in my opinion though is the best aircraft of WW2, just for what it accomplished. Hell the damn things still fly today. That says something.


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 28, 2006)

I'm not a big fan three engine designs, but i'll give you that it's a good plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

She was just a good robust design.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 28, 2006)

But ideally that is what you want from a good aircraft, the more hardship it can take combined with its performance (in real life) should be what defines it. In these respects the C-47 is top (in my opinion).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

I agree the C-47 as I said in my opinion is the best aircraft from WW2.


----------



## J. W. MILLER (Mar 29, 2006)

How about the Japanese Arny Air Force Nakajima Ki84, with a 1860 hp power plant. The "Hayate" for best in a dog fight!
It Compared very favorably with the P-51H and P-47N according to AAF tests after WWII.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2006)

J. W. MILLER said:


> How about the Japanese Arny Air Force Nakajima Ki84, with a 1860 hp power plant. The "Hayate" for best in a dog fight!
> It Compared very favorably with the P-51H and P-47N according to AAF tests after WWII.



Welcome Mr. Miller.....

The Hayate was an excellent fighter and did compare favorably with allied fighters. It did not have the supreme maneuverability like the Oscar or Zero and the controls stiffened up at high speeds. In the hands of a good pilot it was formadable.

But the best "Over-all" plane of WW2 (that's what this thread is showing) in my opinion - the C-47.

The Hayete deserves its place in history but was still swatted out of the skies, mainly because of pilot skill....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2006)

Im with FBJ. For fighter I go with the Fw-190D.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2006)

The C-47 is certainly a milestone aircraft and the most significant in terms of affecting world transportation. Being an old airlifter myself, I would have to vote for the C-47 and an honorable mention for the C-54 (I got to fly in an R5D when the Navy flew me to New Orleans for a flight physical), which took the C-47 a step up into the modern aircraft era and won the first cold war confrontation, the Berlin Airlift.

I was playing golf yesterday at Skylinks in Long Beach Ca., which is right beside the airport. A DC3 flew right overhead while landing. It must have been less that 200 feet above us. What a magnificent sight and sound. That plane has been around for 70+ years of the 103 years of heavier than air flight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

davparlr said:


> The C-47 is certainly a milestone aircraft and the most significant in terms of affecting world transportation. Being an old airlifter myself, I would have to vote for the C-47 and an honorable mention for the C-54 (I got to fly in an R5D when the Navy flew me to New Orleans for a flight physical), which took the C-47 a step up into the modern aircraft era and won the first cold war confrontation, the Berlin Airlift.
> 
> I was playing golf yesterday at Skylinks in Long Beach Ca., which is right beside the airport. A DC3 flew right overhead while landing. It must have been less that 200 feet above us. What a magnificent sight and sound. That plane has been around for 70+ years of the 103 years of heavier than air flight.



Were you a Naval Aviator? Les an I were both USN - He was a Seal, I was an Airdale....


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> .....
> 
> Eisenhower said it himself - the C-47 as one of the four machines that won World War II, along with the bulldozer, 6x6 truck, and the landing craft.



As the saying goes, "amatures discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> As the saying goes, "amatures discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics"


 GREAT!!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 30, 2006)

Yep, good saying syscom.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Were you a Naval Aviator? Les an I were both USN - He was a Seal, I was an Airdale....



I was accepted for both AF and Navy pilot training. But, because the Navy flight surgeon in New Orleans failed to sign my physical, which had to be re-accomplished, by the time I got my acceptance, I had already signed up to the AF (they only gave 5 days to agree). It worked out well since I got to fly a future classic, T-38, and a great plane, C-141, with a great mission. Since I was only in the top third of my pilot training class, I probably would have ended up in the Navy in helicopters or P-3s flying lazy circles in the sky. Also, met my wonderful wife at pilot training. Had I had the choice, I probably would have chosen the Navy since I grew up on the approach end of Sherman Field in Pensacola and cut my teeth on Naval aviation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I was accepted for both AF and Navy pilot training. But, because the Navy flight surgeon in New Orleans failed to sign my physical, which had to be re-accomplished, by the time I got my acceptance, I had already signed up to the AF (they only gave 5 days to agree). It worked out well since I got to fly a future classic, T-38, and a great plane, C-141, with a great mission. Since I was only in the top third of my pilot training class, I probably would have ended up in the Navy in helicopters or P-3s flying lazy circles in the sky. Also, met my wonderful wife at pilot training. Had I had the choice, I probably would have chosen the Navy since I grew up on the approach end of Sherman Field in Pensacola and cut my teeth on Naval aviation.


 Great to hear! I'm an old P-3 guy, I worked for Lockheed and later was in the Reserve working on them. My father in law has a bunch of T-38 time, was an IP in the early 70s - he finished up on the B-1 at the factory...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 30, 2006)

P-3's...Ugghh.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> P-3's...Ugghh.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 30, 2006)

Bastard.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Bastard.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great to hear! I'm an old P-3 guy, I worked for Lockheed and later was in the Reserve working on them. My father in law has a bunch of T-38 time, was an IP in the early 70s - he finished up on the B-1 at the factory...



P-3 a great old plane. like the C-130, its been hard to replace. Just not a great mission. I have visited a few P-3s bases in my 141, maybe you've been there. First theres a delightful island in the middle of the sea that has wonderful bread and perpetual crosswind and a base called Lajes. The second, there's an island in the sea that has an interesting history and a base that is all rock and always at minimums call Keflavik. Ever hear of those?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

davparlr said:


> P-3 a great old plane. like the C-130, its been hard to replace. Just not a great mission. I have visited a few P-3s bases in my 141, maybe you've been there. First theres a delightful island in the middle of the sea that has wonderful bread and perpetual crosswind and a base called Lajes. The second, there's an island in the sea that has an interesting history and a base that is all rock and always at minimums call Keflavik. Ever hear of those?



Oh yea - Heard of em, ever had to go to either one, I was a west coast sailor, VP-65 out of Point Mugu. We deployed to Hawaii, Guam, Corpus Christi, Kadena and Puerto Rico, all the hard places.

I seen the last 141s at March AFB, also seen one at Peterson....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 30, 2006)

I've been to Keflavik. Somewhat desolate. Icelandic girls are nice though.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2006)

flyboyJ. Nice duty posts. I have spent quite a few crew rests at Kadena. Ate Kobe beef off base. One of the worlds great meals. When I first started going there, they were driving on the right side of the road. Later, they were driving on the left. The US had just turned Okinawa over to Japan.

Never got off base at Keflavik. One of the problems with flying a 141, you got familar with a lot concrete around the world, but three hours and you are gone. I know an Icelandic girl here and she is very nice.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great to hear! I'm an old P-3 guy, I worked for Lockheed and later was in the Reserve working on them. My father in law has a bunch of T-38 time, was an IP in the early 70s - he finished up on the B-1 at the factory...



The T-38 is great. I doubt you will find anyone who stick time in a T-38 that would say that it is not a fun airplane to fly. They have just put new wings on it and it is schedule to to fly till 2040. Chances are, when they replace her, the new plane will not be the performer that theT-38 is or be as fun to fly.

Name: Talon

Nickname: White Rocket

Speed: Mach 1.2

Roll Rate: 520 degrees/sec (if remember right)

Climb record: 0 to 40k in 90 sec.

Not a bad plane to train in!


----------



## Aggie08 (Mar 31, 2006)

The T38 is quite a looker too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2006)

I wish I had my camara, at the Valdosta Airport there was an F-4 sitting there and a Shootingstar.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 6, 2006)

T-38, my science teacher in school did his training time in them, has some greand stories of getting to low, distraced and then going to mach one and ratteling the windows. He ended up flying B-52s 

C-47s, what could they not do? wheels, skies, and floats  I have to agree they were vital to the war, but what about the other transports? Ju-52, was like the C-47 used for everything and did everything well, but was to slow. A shame that Junkers could not improve it more.

C-141s are pritty. Sad they are retiered


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2006)

C-141's have not retired yet. I saw them all the time when I was in Iraq and saw one at Rammstein AFB about 2 months ago.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 10, 2006)

JU52's are nowhere near the same league as the C47.

While the C46 and C54 were both better aircraft in terms of payload, it was the C47 that could land it on unimproved dirt fields that were "airfields" in name only.

In the PTO/CBI, the C47's were indispensible, often meaning the difference between the allies on the offense, or on static defense.

In the ETO, I doubt that the Normandy invasion would have gone off as planned without the C47's carrying the paratroopers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> In the ETO, I doubt that the Normandy invasion would have gone off as planned without the C47's carrying the paratroopers.


 Or towing gliders...


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 10, 2006)

Agreed.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 10, 2006)

One thing Ive learned from many different threads over the past year, is the "superiority" of an individual aircraft is always fleeting. An aircraft could be superior for a few months, then get superceded by either an axis or allied design.

But one thing where the allies were always superior, and the reason the allies won the war, was LOGISTICS!!

There was a book written a few years ago "Why The Allies Won". An argument was put forth that in the German military, the best and brightest went to command the field armies, which explains why they were such deadly opponants in battle. But when it came to the mundane occupations such as field engineering and logisitics, the allies put many of their best and brightest in those slots.

If you look at the campaigns in a macro sense, the firepower of both sides was about even. For example, the Tiger tank was vastly better than the Sherman, but the allies always managed to find enough Shermans to equalize the fight. Even if we were to say the Fw190 was the best fighter, the allies always managed to have enough P38/P47/P51/Spits in the air to offset it.

What determined the outcome in these campaigns was the allies simply managed to get more supplies to the troops up front. The Germans never seemed to win the battle of logistics.

Think about how different the war would have been if the allies didnt have LST's, DUKW's and 6X6 trucks.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 10, 2006)

The C-47 was such a successful design, it was copied by the Russians and the Japanese


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 10, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> The C-47 was such a successful design, it was copied by the Russians and the Japanese



I wasn't copied, the design was accquired and built under licence by both the Russians (as the Li-2 with Shevestiv radials) and the Japanese (as the Showa L2D).


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> One thing Ive learned from many different threads over the past year, is the "superiority" of an individual aircraft is always fleeting. An aircraft could be superior for a few months, then get superceded by either an axis or allied design.
> 
> But one thing where the allies were always superior, and the reason the allies won the war, was LOGISTICS!!
> 
> ...



That's a good point. It's strange to see how many logistical mistakes were made by Germany. I've never seen it put like that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > In the ETO, I doubt that the Normandy invasion would have gone off as planned without the C47's carrying the paratroopers.
> ...



actually they didn't really do as much glider towing as para dropping, i can't really speak much for the american glider campain but in the RAF they prefered to use heavy and medium bombers for glider towing, partly to free up the para aircraft and partly for the extra power(remembering the horsa is considderably larger than the puny american Wacos used, it was actually a design specification of the competition that the horsa won, she had to carry double the numer of troops as a Waco CG-4A Hadrian) either way the glider campaign could've gone ahead without the Dakota, although i agree that D-Day would've been a failure without it............


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> One thing Ive learned from many different threads over the past year, is the "superiority" of an individual aircraft is always fleeting. An aircraft could be superior for a few months, then get superceded by either an axis or allied design.
> 
> But one thing where the allies were always superior, and the reason the allies won the war, was LOGISTICS!!
> 
> ...



I agree totally. The overpowering weapon that won the war was the American industrial machine and allied logistics. The Axis never stood a chance once America was geared up. Even if England and the Soviet Uninon had fallen, making allies out of those who hated you was not a sound practice (like the Soviet Union). I doubt that they could have motivated the Brits, French, Russians, et.al. to generate the applied effort to offset the American war machine and they could not have done it on their own (especially watching behind their backs at their subjugated population).


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2006)

This indeed is a good argument. 
However, with or without the military deployment of US forces against axis in europe, Germany would have lost the war either.
It was the often underrated economy of the SU (which clearly hadn´t their best minds in the logistics department) and their military potential which broke the backbone of Germanys land air forces. From 1941-1943, the russian front binded 70-85% of Germany land air forces (depending on months). It was not possible for the vaunted Whermacht to achieve a strategic victory over the SU (with a notable exception in late 1941, when Stalin asked the rumanian ambassador in Moscow what conditions Hitler would want for an armistice), and I would even go so far and say it was beyond possibilities. However, the composite efforts done by all allieds contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. And as Syscom pointed out, logistic advances contributed more to this than we would expect.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 13, 2006)

Roger that Jabberwocky, not sitting at home with my library... Thanks for the correct info. What was the codename for the Japanese model?


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2006)

delcyros said:


> This indeed is a good argument.
> However, with or without the military deployment of US forces against axis in europe, Germany would have lost the war either.
> It was the often underrated economy of the SU (which clearly hadn´t their best minds in the logistics department) and their military potential which broke the backbone of Germanys land air forces. From 1941-1943, the russian front binded 70-85% of Germany land air forces (depending on months). It was not possible for the vaunted Whermacht to achieve a strategic victory over the SU (with a notable exception in late 1941, when Stalin asked the rumanian ambassador in Moscow what conditions Hitler would want for an armistice), and I would even go so far and say it was beyond possibilities. However, the composite efforts done by all allieds contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. And as Syscom pointed out, logistic advances contributed more to this than we would expect.



I certainly agree to a certain point. If Germany had defeated Great Britian before engaging Russia, then, with the Africa Corp and many troop from France, Germany may have punched through to Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad and may have forced an armistice on Russia (of course, who knows what that madman Hitler would have done. Something for sure to lose the war) before Russia could mobilize. Once Germany stalled in Russia, their war was lost. However, It would have been much longer and bloodier. With no strategic bombing of factories, oil fields/refineries, logistic links, etc. Germany production would have been significantly larger and more formidiable.

Russian contribution cannot be underestimated. They lost tremendous numbers of people and equipment to defeat Germany.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2006)

The russians are loath to admit it, but the lend lease the US and UK provided often was of a critical nature. Without it, the USSR might have had difficulties on going on the offensive and might had to contend with a stalemate.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2006)

> with the Africa Corp



if, in the unlikely event Britain surrendered, that does not mean her colonies would also, we would've carried the fight on in Africa for as long as possible...........


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 14, 2006)

Agreed, it was planned for as well. Move the Royal Family, government etc to Canada and continue the war from there. Even if Britain had surrendered its colonies would still have been a force to be reconed with, especially if elements of the RAF, RN and Army went with them...


----------



## Udet (Apr 14, 2006)

Quote:

"However, with or without the military deployment of US forces against axis in europe, Germany would have lost the war either."

There are sufficient people that will certainly come along to contest that part of your arguent Mr.Delcyros.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 14, 2006)

Udet said:


> Quote:
> 
> "However, with or without the military deployment of US forces against axis in europe, Germany would have lost the war either."
> 
> There are sufficient people that will certainly come along to contest that part of your arguent Mr.Delcyros.


Since you are one of those people Udet, can you spell out why?




> the russian front binded 70-85% of Germany land air forces


Land forces yes but not the LW.

In July 42, there was 62.6% of the onhand a/c of the LW were in Russian compared to in the West.

By May 43, this was reduced to only 46.8% in Russian compared to what was in the West.

The 'West' includes Italy, Germany/Denmark and France/Holland/Belgium.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2006)

The moment the allies had the atomic bomb, the war was over. Period.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 15, 2006)

The nuke may not have been that decisisive against nazi-Germany (in this event Hitler would have allowed the use of Botulinum and this would have been even more severe than a nuke, according to US plans it was believed (wrongly) that Germany already would be in the same situation when the nuke was avaiable to the US and therefore these weapon could have the same fate as the chemical WoM in storage) but this is speculative and fiction.
I counted the transportation and courier services for eastern front as well. And I included the airforce deployments efforts done by axis partners, such as Croatia, Slovenia, Rumania, Finnland, Bulgaria and Italy on the eastern front as well. But most important, I took notice about the numbers of combat sorties flown. All this gives an indication of Luftwafe presence and thus 70%-85% (the latter beeing a peak at Stalingrad campaign only) are reliable numbers.
Had Germany taken Moscow in 1941, Stalin would have moved behind the Ural and continued the war, there were similar plans (as stated with Britain / Canada) to do so, the industry was already in stage of replacing. There is no doubt that the US contributed a lot with food to the survival of the USSR those times.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 15, 2006)

The first use of the atomic bomb on Germany would have caused a revolt in the army, and they would have sued for peace. Hitler could haveunleashed all the bacterial weapons he wanted to, but it wasnt going to end the systematic wiping out of the major cities.

The Rhur and Berlin would have been targets one and two. I wonder what the next one would be? Munich? Nuremberg? Magdeberg?


----------



## Henk (Apr 15, 2006)

I would say the next would be Munich, Nuremburg and Hamburg.

Henk


----------



## Pisis (Apr 21, 2006)

and Dresden...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 21, 2006)

Not Nuremburg, where would Rock im Park be held then !?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 21, 2006)

There were only three atomic weapons available throughout 1945. Only three cities could be hit.

I would say the order of bombing would be:
Hamburg, the Rhur and then, finally Berlin.


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 21, 2006)

pisis, why dresden when the raf so thoroughly destroyed it already??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2006)

I agree, however I dont think Berlin would have been bombed at all. I think it would have been Hamburg, Stuttgart, and then maybe Nurnberg. Nurnberg would have been a moral defeat for the Nazis. Stuttgart because of the Steel plants which allready were destroyed anyhow.


----------



## Henk (Apr 22, 2006)

Yes, Nuremberg would be the perfect hit on the Nazis, but then they would use it to inspire their troops, but I do not think it would change the tide of the war though.

Henk


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 22, 2006)

I think that without american involvement, the bomb would have never been built, and hence not dropped on Germany. This is assuming that either:
1. America never enters, Germany gets stomped by Russia, or
2. America enters against Japan only, stomps Japan, Germany still gets stomped by Russia
Either way, by winter of '41/'42 the stage is set for the inevitable whoopin'.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

!942 was when Germany lost the battle at Stalingrad and thus opened the gate for the Russians. By 1943 Germany started to really see that things are not running like it should. America would never have A bombed Germany. Look were Japan lies and where Germany lies on the map. If the US A bombed Germany it would have effected the whole Europe, but Japan is a island.

Germany were better to invade than Japan and the US and the rest of the allies knew that, but if they invaded Japan there would be greater losses.

Henk


----------



## Pisis (Apr 23, 2006)

I can agrre on that.



> pisis, why dresden when the raf so thoroughly destroyed it already??


You're quite right... But I meant if it won't be destroyed already...


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 23, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> I think that without american involvement, the bomb would have never been built, and hence not dropped on Germany. This is assuming that either:
> 1. America never enters, Germany gets stomped by Russia, or
> 2. America enters against Japan only, stomps Japan, Germany still gets stomped by Russia
> Either way, by winter of '41/'42 the stage is set for the inevitable whoopin'.



The US would have developed the bomb even without entry into the war with Germany. The US was scared of the German capacity to build atomic weapons if it chose too.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

Yes, but the scientist told Hitler they were coming on greatly, but they worked very slow and thus Hitler became annoyed and stopped it thinking that it was a waste.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 23, 2006)

Henk, Germany was going to be the recipient of the first atomic weapons if the war was stalemated when they were available. March 1945 was when the presidents advisors decided that the wa rin Europe was going to end prior to then.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

They talked the other day to the scientist who worked on that project and they described the things they told Hitler when he wanted a report on how things were coming on. The other things is after the Hydro dam were attacked in Norway and the Heavy Water Factory it was kinda the end of the project. Hitler saw the whole project as a waste and stopped it long before the war ended.

Hitler once said that his army does not need such weapons to be victorious.

Henk


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 23, 2006)

I agree with Henk, the cyclotron being worked on by Neils Bohr before he was spirited out of Europe was being watched very closely and he never achieved fission. The British Special Forces were watching this very closely, and had explosives planted under his lab to blow it to kingdom come had he been successful. Thus, the closest Hitler ever got to a bomb was a dirty radiological bomb.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 23, 2006)

Not exactly. There are at least six german independent nuke projects identified so far. There was enough uranium captured in Germany to start the soviet nuke project in postwartimes (indeed the german material was absolutely crucial for them). Diebner succeeded in building a shortliving nuclear pile, Von Ardenne succeeded in building of at least three recyclotrons to enrichen Uranium and the Kriegsmariene units succeeded in various fuze designs for nukes with temporarly chain reaction (call them tactical or very dirty nukes). According to trace analysis at Ohrdruf there is some probability that at least one such bomb was tested in march 1945. Not to speak of the He-177 A6 modified in late march 1945 at Prague to carry a large, special "U- bombe". All in all that´s not a nuke but it seems they came closer than believed by the allies in postwartimes. Hitler never canceled the whole program, even the SS was involved in 1944 (as it was in the V2). Heisenberg was asked in 1942 if he could build a bomb of decisive force to be used in this war. He denied the question and therefore the funds were cutted down until 1944. It has also been estimated that Heisenberg miscalculated the critical mass but new evidence (Farm Hall reports and statements from V. Ardenne and Böhl) question this. At least Diebner absolutely correctly gave the critical mass for a nuke in his papers.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 23, 2006)

I still agree with Henk. Germany and America operating in a vacuum, Germany will still not be able to complete a functioning "atomic" weapon, prior to Russia kicking the snot out of them. America did put the proper funding and priority into an atomic weapons program and Germany didn't. The British actually confounded the German atomic program at every turn, including the Hydro Plant sabotage referred to by Henk, and stealing heavy water right out from under the Nazi noses in a French port.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 23, 2006)

The US were strategically more correct, yes. A nuke would have little effect against the advancing red army as well.
But Your statement with the british almost confounding is wrong. This is true for exterior programs only (Norway). And even this is not true at all. The most advanced nation in nuclear technology by outbreak of the war wasn´t Germany or Britain but France! What did the british to prevent the facilities (including the Paris recyclotron!) from falling into german hands? Nothing. Norsk Hydro delivered more than enough heavy water for all experiments in Germany. By 1943 the first german heavy water facilities were online. And the british intellegence completely failed to acknowledge Ardennes, Schuhmann and Trinks role in the nuke projects, letting them go to Russia and work for the soviet nuke project.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

I do not know about what you say mate, where did you get the info? 

Henk


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 23, 2006)

Actually, Italy was further ahead as far as scientific research goes, but they didn't follow up with military support. Germany had quite a few projects, but lacked a unilateral view of a single project. Had Germany consolidated their projects under a team of their best scientists, I am sure they would have had an operational bomb before the end of the war. All that being said, that would have been the only way Germany would have "the" bomb, much less use it.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

The scientists used for some of these projects was forced to work on it and also did not want to do it so they stalled it and made sure it will not go further.

Henk


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 23, 2006)

Henk, I've got the documentation at home. I'll post the books from home. As an aside, I know a guy who was on the team that found trace radioactivity from an explosion at Ohrdurf.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

Where do you live Bullockracing? I actualy meant delcyros when I said I do not know about what he is saying, but I would love to see those documentation mate.

Henk


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 23, 2006)

I live in Louisiana, USA


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

Ok, where did you get those papers mate?

Henk


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 23, 2006)

I've built up a respectable little library of books on the subject. I'll have to get home later tonight to give a detailed reference.


----------



## Henk (Apr 23, 2006)

That sounds great.

Henk


----------



## Twitch (Apr 24, 2006)

The Me 264 prototypes had long existed existed, had more than ample range to attack the US and could have been put into production if desired.

The Germans had the necessary nuclear materials to construct a bomb. They just didn't come up with a way to do it.

As far as Jap nukes read part 4 of this multi-part article on the invasion of Japan. http://www.combatsim.com/review.php?id=721

Here is what I have researched regarding nuclear weapons. It is part of a book I have not yet published.

As for voyages to Japan and Germany via submarine with nuclear materials there is the famous U-234 story:

The amount of uranium oxide it contained about 3.5 kilos of U-235. That is about 1/5th-1/3rd the amount needed to make a nuclear bomb. The material certainly found its way to Oakridge but there is no way of knowing specifically what device it was used in. 

The Japanese had a substantial amout already gleaned from scouring China for their nuclear research facility in North Korea. They had developed gas centrifuges to refine uranium back in the 1930s. The Germans got into that technology about 1942. The benefit was the lack of heavy water needed. Decrypts of messages point to Germany/Japan transfering this technology and material in 1943-44. When Italy capitulated in 1943 a sub with uranium oxide bound for Japan was surrendered in South Africa. 

Also on board the U-234 was lots of cargo. Cargo containers were built to fit in the original mine shafts forward, midships and astern. Four cargo containers were carried topside. 240 tons of cargo were loaded for departure March 25,1945. Cargo included three crated Messershmitt Me-262 jet fighters and an ME-163 rocket-propelled fighter, Henschel HS-293 glider-bomb, extra Junkers jet engines, 10 canisters of uranium oxide, a ton of diplomatic mail, and over 3 tons of technical drawings, plus other technology (torpedo, fuses, armor piercing shells, etc.) Passengers were 9 high technical officers (one general) and civilian scientists. 

U-129 and U-195 had delivered 12 V-2s to Japan in 1944. U-859 sunk in 1944 was carrying uranium. There were something like 98 known attempts or successful voyages to Japan so we can only imaging what goodies were sent. 

NAZI NUKES©
So you’ve heard the Germans were nowhere near developing a nuclear bomb like the pair used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. True enough. But as we fear small, “dirty” nukes in the hands of terrorists today, scientists in Germany had the simple technology in World War II and a means of delivery.

THE THEORIES
Scientists Otto Hahn and Friedrich Strassman created the fission of uranium U-235 in December 1938. The nuclear puzzle in all countries was to stimulate the normally slow emanation of radioactive elements and force them to release their energy all at once. If that could be accomplished considerable destructive power could be wielded. U-238 is a normal non-volatile isotopic metal found in nature. U-235, on the other hand, is highly radioactive. Neither is capable of nuclear fission to produce and explosion without intense transmutation by and outside process. 

The goal was to find a way to refine U-235 from its normal one percent radioactive composition in conjunction with the ninety-nine percent composition of U-238. If a refining process attains a three percent figure for U-235, then a reaction is made. Non-volatile U-238, if barraged by radiation, can be transmuted into plutonium and the new element, U-239, is born. This element is weapons grade material.

Nuclear reaction requires that neutrons discharged by decaying atoms need to collide with other atoms nearby causing them to decay as well, hence a chain reaction. Since the neutrons exited at high velocity from U-235 atoms passing through adjacent uranium atoms without effect, a means to slow them down was needed. Early on Germans scientists had used graphite as an agent to slow down the neutrons and cause fission in the atoms. Much later it was concluded that impurities in the graphite absorbed the neutrons instead of simply slowing them down. They had the perfect catalyst and didn’t know it. Since there were so few men working on things, experiments couldn’t be conducted again. They had to move on. Their loss- our gain!

ENTER HEAVY WATER
For the Virus House team (the code name for the German nuclear project) the next conceivable substance was “heavy water.” It is an unusual form or normal H2O, water, in which a form of the hydrogen atom is of heavier atomic weight than, and replaces, the regular hydrogen atom. Heavy water (deuterium oxide) is found in nature and can be separated from normal water in hydro-electric facilities using diverters to isolate it. Such a plant was in operation in Vemonk, Norway and was the basis of the cinema film The Heroes Of Telemark that depicted the underground’s destruction of the hydro-electric facilities and dam. It was the Norsk Hydro Hydrogen Electrolysis plant. 

In fact the plant was never fully destroyed but the repeated attacks by bombers and saboteurs did accomplish the same thing when production ceased in 1943. By then several tons of deuterium oxide had been gleaned from the dam and were to be shipped to Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Göttingen, Germany. The transport ship carrying it was sunk but that didn’t mean German scientists were without heavy water completely, of course.

Before the facility was taken by the Germans in 1940, French physicists under the direction of Frederic Joliot-Curie had conducted experiments using the heavy water from the plant. 1,000 tons of uranium was captured in Belgium in 1940 as well. The cat was out of the bag. The Germans had the materials.

All evidence discovered as the Allies swept into Germany in the late days of the war pointed to the fact that no suitable nuclear reactor was in operation and that the Germans were years away from a bomb. A large vessel of heavy water with hundreds of uranium cubes suspended in it was depicted as the only thing in existence and that was unworkable.

No, the reactor didn’t become critical. Post war calculations showed that a functioning nuclear reactor would have had to be about 1.5 times the size of this reactor. However, expanding the reactor was no longer possible in April 1945 due to the lack of more heavy water and uranium blocks. Again, a slight miscalculation made them elude success.

A SUCCESS?
But in Leipzig in 1942 Werner Heisenberg (1932 Nobel Prize winner – “for the creation of quantum mechanics, the application of which has indirectly led to the discovery of the allotropic forms of hydrogen”) was head of atomic research- code named Virus House. His team built a different device. They had two aluminum hemispheres bolted around a central sphere containing heavy water and uranium powder. It measured about 2.5 feet in diameter. The whole affair was submerged in ordinary water for twenty days, cooking. Bubbles were seen to be escaping from the device. When the thing was raised and the access hatch opened a hissing sound was produced followed by a jet of fire.

Alarmed scientists thought somehow the uranium had ignited and promptly drained the heavy water to stop contamination after extinguishing the fire. They resealed the unit and lowered it into the water once more with a sigh of relief.

In a few hours the sphere was discharging bubbles again. This time the tank of coolant water was beginning to boil, so great was the heat generated. Astoundingly the thing commenced to vibrate and physically swell in size! Everyone evacuated the room and the device exploded spewing burning uranium. Fire crews called in poured water on it but it did not douse the ensuing fire. It took two days for the fire to burn itself out.
What was the purpose of this outlandish device? Certainly the scientists were attempting to slow down the neutrons in order to make them interact with the atoms. Remember if U-238 uranium is radiated with U-235 plutonium is created. Beryllium in aluminum has the capability of emitting neutrons when under bombardment of radiation during a process that takes several weeks to accomplish.

So we must ask what purpose that sphere was supposed to accomplish? Why did they put uranium and heavy water together in an aluminum sphere wait three weeks for some results? 

With heavy water as a moderator slowing down the neutrons, they could then interact with other atoms. 

If the uranium undergoes nuclear bombardment some U-238 will be transmuted into plutonium, while some is transmuted into U-233 that is also fissionable Aluminum has the property of emitting neutrons when bombarded by alpha particles such as those generated by radium but to accomplish this a significant amount of time was required.
con't-


----------



## Twitch (Apr 24, 2006)

This same experiment was undertaken by an American teenager in the mid-1990s. The results had to be taken to a nuclear disposal site. Since Heisenberg’s team was a little smarter than this kid, it is pretty likely that they too produced fissionable material in 1942 since the unquenchable fire was completely Chernobyl-like in its demeanor. 

The Amerika Bombers, like the Me 264 and Ju 390 that were never pursued, we must remember that late 1944 saw intense interest in the concept again. Why? The jet power possible to propel bombers high and fast was at hand and not just to deliver conventional bombs. No one was dumb enough to believe that a few tons of explosives would halt the American war effort.

Of course the impetus for the renewed interest in atomic research was the Amerika Bomber that was given the green light along with the A-9/A-10 weapon.

The nuclear apparatus consisted of ten layers of uranium formed into circular plates of different diameters stacked inside the top half of a sphere. The plates did not lie atop of one another but would have had spaces between them so that kerosene could flow between them. So they had alternating layers of uranium and kerosene. Kerosene was used for its excellent absorbsion of the neutrons so that the plates did not interact in an atomic manner. 

They used about 551 kilograms of uranium. A tube ran vertically through the bomb’s axis. A small ball of beryllium and polonium was used to release a spray of neutrons at the beginning of the fission process. The bottom half of the sphere was filled with a solid ballast, probably steel or iron

USA NUKED!
Let’s run a “what if” scenario. The Horten XVIII Amerika Bomber is well above 40,000 feet closing on New York City or Washington D.C. No one has detected it because it is made from layers of wood and carbon glued together. Yes, it is constructed of composites and with its all wing shape it is the first stealth bomber. The four Heinkel-Hirth HeS 011s with 10,600 lbs. of combined thrust are buried in the 130-foot wing. The plane weighed 35 tons on takeoff. The ample 6,835-mile range has brought its three-man crew to the American shores with ease. Two unnecessary 30 mm Mk 108 cannon are there for the slight possibility of defense though its ceiling is a lofty 52,492 feet. 

The bombardier now lines up on the Empire State Building or Washington Monument and a 2,200-lb. bomb with an armored nose begins its nine-mile dive. The bomber exits the area at 550 MPH heading home to complete its 27-hour mission.

At supersonic speed the projectile pierces a building. The impact force shears the pins holding uranium plates. The sphere shatters under the pressure of its compressed kerosene load, which then ignites and spews out in all directions. The detonator cap in the nose unleashes a spray of neutrons into the uranium. If the device does not detonate in chain reaction fashion the uranium commences meltdown similar to the 1942 lab incident but not with just uranium powder. Once the material bores through to the water table a mass of superheated water will arise in a colossal cloud of radioactive steam that will poison the area for decades hence. 

If all went “well” and the device was delivered via the A-9 the device would have struck with enough force to commence the chain reaction process and detonate in atomic fashion ala Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

By the way, when Göring ordered immediate construction of the Horten Ho XVIIIB in February 1945 the Ho XVIII was simply a larger version of the Ho 9 or Ho 229, which had already flown. 

Yes, the real German atomic weapon was a feasible reality. Its construction was quite similar to the experimental sphere. Ten uranium layers were to be spaced within the 2.5-foot diameter sphere so that kerosene could flow between them. Why? Kerosene absorbs neutrons very well to insulate against contact and reaction. Then once the small golf-ball-sized sphere of beryllium is fractured neutrons commence the fission process. 

The meltdown scenario is a possibility since the American A-bomb functioned with a 1,000 FPS shot of collision to smash its uranium plates together and produce the chain reaction. A free falling bomb might not travel so fast.

OTHER DELIVERIES
The A-4 or V-2, as it was known, impacted at 3,000 FPS. Quite fast enough, but it hadn’t the range to attack the U.S. This is why the A-9/A-10 project was accelerated near the war’s end. It was envisioned as early as 1940 as a multi-stage winged rocket. In 1941 Dr. Walter Thiel calculated one engine with 400,000 lbs. thrust could be developed in three years if given priority. 

By January 1945 a winged V-2 was successful in trials. A booster with six 56,000 lb. thrust A-4 motors was to be the A-10 that would launch with the A-9 atop it with its 2,200 lb. payload, in this case a nuclear bomb. After boost phase to extraordinary altitude the A-9 would separate and head toward the U.S. gliding on its 29.5-foot wings. Its impact would certainly cause chain reaction and detonation of atomic proportions. The rocket would have a range of 3,105 miles with a 6,500 MPH peak speed.

Paul Harteckk’s and Dr. Wilhelm Ohnesorge’s research theorized that low temperature for the reactor would work as a dirty bomb. Mixed with sand and dust it would leave behind plutonium and radioactive isotopes after detonation in a V-1 or V-2 warhead. A dirty bomb was feasible and possible at any time of the German program. 

Dissention of ideas and the small number of scientists involved fortunately hindered developments. The fundamental theories varied widely and many believed a whole nuclear reactor had to be dropped for a nuclear explosion to occur. 

The submarine-towed pods with V-2s was pursued to the point that a Type XXI submarine pod was finished by the war’s conclusion earmarked for deployment off the eastern U.S. coast. This was certainly more plausible than the A-9/A-10 in the given time.

At the end of hostilities the French may have found two prototype bomb spheres near Stuttgart submerged in water in a lab. Since they were immersed it meant they were probably ready for testing. They supposedly blew up the complex.

The Germans simply weren’t all on the same page in their efforts and Heisenberg and company didn’t really grasp the integrals to build a good bomb though they had in their power the ability to construct a “dirty” one. Seemingly what they did discover they didn’t capitalize on. Their loss was the Allied world’s gain.

PS
But did they fail? Recently it has been pieced together that a dirty bomb with a small amount of uranium triggered by conventional explosives was experimented with in the Ohrdruf concentration camp area of eastern Germany. Ground zero later became a Soviet munitions depot after the war. Higher than normal levels of radioactive isotopes remain though no longer at dangerous levels.

The alleged test was on March 3, 1945 according to eyewitnesses. A vivid flash of light was followed by a column of smoke and nearby residents suffered nosebleeds and nausea for days. Corpses later disposed of were described as hairless with blisters and raw flesh reminiscent of the Japanese radiation victims.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 24, 2006)

An interesting show on the german ww2 nuclear program will be airing on NOVA (worlds best documentaries) on PBS in the next week or two most of the North Americans should be able to see this


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 24, 2006)

Theres one thing we tend not to dwell on about whether the germans could have built a nuke.

That is the size of the industrial base necessary to build all the componants, integrate them and deploy a warhead.

The US was able to do it just because of the shear size of the economy. But it also took a lot of resources to do it. It was a vast undertaking that took up lots of scientific and technical talent. And that doesnt count the engineering resources needed to build the huge facilities to even begin the production. And all of this was done without the threat of air raids.

Considering how stretched thin Germany was in perfecting its advanced "conventional" weapons, plus they had driven out of the reich the scientists and technicians needed to build the bomb, I can say there is no way germany could have ever built an atomic bomb, even if they had the blueprints. The facilities would have been huge, and definatley would have been bombed on more than one occasion.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 24, 2006)

I agree with syscom on this. There's an awful lot of what-ifs for Germany to actually build an operational bomb, but given the time and facilities it could have happened, but still not as fast as America. I seriously doubt the ability of any WWII bomber to hit any specific building from a height of 40,000 ft. B-29s over Japan discovered how difficult this was due to the jet stream at 30,000. That being said, given time and facilities, the Horten XVIII Amerika Bomber could have been built as well, but a Ju-290 did come within visual range on NYC before the end of 1944.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2006)

No Ju-290 ever came within visual of NYC during WWII, that's a long running myth.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 27, 2006)

This corresponce to most I read.
However, unbeknown to allied invesstigators (who concentrated more on Heisenbergs Virus House team), the experimental pile Gottow IV -directed by the team around Diebner (who also was the leader of the institute for the french Paris Recyclotron) BECAME CRITICAL in 1944! we do have both, literally and physically evidence (the former is a letter of Diebner to Heisenberg found in moscow archives, who asked Heisenberg about a specific problem, the latter are the trace element analysis from the special place in Gottow). Actually Heisenberg had the wrong theory about the geometric arrangements of uranium for a self sustaining pile while Diebner (since 1942!) had the right idea. Heisenberg fighted Diebner constantly, not accepting his theories except for 1944 and later when he himself turned his arrangement for his last experimental pile (Haigerloch) into a globular shaped arrangement. By this time he simply hadn´t enough uranium for a succesful pile (23 Kg of the material for his experiment were allocated at Thuringia at the team around Diebner and were captured by the soviets subsequently), and he knew about this. 
I suggest to read R. Karlsch´s book, it covers recent discoveries (mostly from the now accessable Moscow archives) but is criticised for his assumptions of technical aspects of the bombs intended to build by the Germans. I do not know if it is translated into english yet or not.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2006)

The industrial infrastructure needed to produce bomb grade uranium was huge. Were not talking about small buildings here, but plants that are the size of the the steel mills.

In Germany, they would have been bombed. Would it put a halt to development? Nope. Would it delay the effort? Yup!

The US sites were well protected from air attack. In fact, there would have been so few "Amerika Bombers" and hundreds of other targets that had to be bombed, I dont think any air raid would have been done.

Note - the three main Manhattan Project sites were Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington and Los Alamos, New Mexico. All of them far from German airfields.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 27, 2006)

The Me 264 had more than ample range at 9,320 miles. And a dirty bomb needs no precise alignment targeting. Close works not only for horseshoes but nukes as well.

The Germans obviously had suffficient uranium oxide to be able to give some to the Japanese. Hell, they had at minimum 1,000 tons of uranium captured from Belgium. And they obviously reached mass and were able to produce plutonium in 1942. The problem simply was that their vessel was too small and the correct use of graphite as a moderator was incorrectly seen as a failure due to impurities in the material. In that the project was underfunded repeat experiments were not economically feasible. Heissenberg was incorrect in his reactor size caluclations. This was the fundamental root of the problem. They mis-assessed their successes, as it were, thankfully.

In that rocketry programs in Germany began in 1919 it is relatively safe to say that had a nuclear program commenced the same year with the A-1's existance in 1930 would have had sufficient time to work through the problems. If the Weimar Republic had dedicated equally to the goal of the nuclear puzzle with the immense resource emphasis they placed on the "aggregate" rockets guys like Einstein would have been working on the solution long before Hitler was a factor in German politics.


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 27, 2006)

nice info.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2006)

I thought you meant the amerika bomber had a conventional payload.

Still, while Germany had the resources to design the bomb, they didnt have the resources to build more than one for testing.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 27, 2006)

Boy, has this thread really jumped. From the C-47 (which is probably the best aircraft of WWII and probably the best aircraft ever) to hypothetical aircraft (the Ju390 and the Me264 did fly, I believe) with hypothetical bombs. My comments:

First. The Manhattan project was huge! Many, many years. Lots and lots of dollars. A great amount of intellectual resources. Germany never committed, and maybe didn't have, the resources to build the A-Bomb in any kind of reasonable time.

Second. I doubt that any of the German aircraft mentioned could have bombed the US. Remember the first A-Bombs weighed about 10000 lbs. The Ju390 performance is based on a bomb load of 3968 lbs. Not quite the 10000 lbs needed. The Me 264, which was similar but lighter than the B-29 might have made a one way but probably not, especially against the jet winds. They may have launched one or two without being detected. But once the first on went off, no more unescorted bombers would have made it. The Horten would have been magical to the job, with any engines available to the Germans! The B-47 with six engines of superior design to any WWII engines could only go about 3800 miles with a 10000 lb bomb load. The YB-49 with a cleaner design (engines are not in pods) and six more powerful engines could only go 3200 miles with 10000 lbs. If you think the Horten is actually cleaner, remember the B-49 actually flew. The Horten would have had to use similar stabilizing fins to make it flyable. Also note that the B-36, which was designed for an intercontinental mission with an A-bomb by a country far more experienced in long range bombers, had six 3500 hp engines and weighed 370,000 lbs, over twice the weight of the Ju390.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 28, 2006)

Seems there was some design of the Horten that buried six engines in the wing ala B-49. Still 10,000 lbs of bomb with that few lbs thrust and thirsty engines would not make the US.


----------



## Twitch (Apr 28, 2006)

I reinterate, had the Weimar Republic pursued the nuclear goal with the verve and time given the aggregate rocket program they would have succeeded. Happily for the world they didn't.

The Me 264 had a 9,320 mile range with payload ample for reaching the eastern US and returning. The Ju 390's range was insufficient at 5,750 miles.

The Horten brothers realized that vertical stabs would probably assist lateral stability. They weren't lame. They stated trailing edge lateral control devices were planned. That was not a big deal in the developmental phase of an aircraft project either. NO plane is produced in final flying form from blueprint to the runway. That's what trials are for to make modifications and improvements after input from the pilot and flight engineers.

The grotesque B-36 is no yardstick to measure what is required to achieve long range in a bomber. There is and always has been several paths to any one goal. 

The Horten P.18A used 6 engines, was 35 tons loaded and had a projected range of 7,457 miles while the P.18B used 4 turbines and would have a range of 6,835 miles. They were to be built out of composite materials.

Why does it seen that to achieve long range one must build a flying turd like the B-36? There are other ways to do it with grace an finesse. The B-36A weighed 212,800 lbs. loaded and 311,000 lbs. maximum. The B-36H weighed 370,000 in 1956.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 28, 2006)

A heavy bomber is a weapons system. It needs long range (duhhhhhh!!!), an adequate payload to make it worthwhile to use, defensive firepower and an extensive avioncs suite for offensive and defensive purposes.

If you've read the many threads in here about the B17/24/29 and Lanc, you will see that each bomber got progressively heavier and heavier as operation requirements changed.

The German bombers youre talking about were just starting points and they would get heavier and heavier just like their allied counterparts.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 28, 2006)

The great circle distance from Germany to NY is approximately 3500 statue miles. The YB-49, with a similar configuration as the Horten, with 10000 lbs of weapons could not fly that distance. The Horten, with even earlier engines would not probably not do that good. There would be no way the Horten could make the round trip to NY with a 10000 bomb load and probably couldn't with no bomb load. Early jet engines were huge consumers of fuel. The YB-35, with PW 4350s, could possibly make the round trip with a bomb. A Ju390 with only the bomb and fuel could come close to a round trip. Maybe with one way flights could NY be attacked. Even today, the B-2 with much superior aerodynamics, construction and engines could make make the round trip, but probably not by much.

As for the Horten weight, when design is done, I suspect the weight would be significantly higher. 

The Arado, at 18000 lbs and two engines could only go 960 mile with 1000 lbs of bombs. Even if we project this linearly (Four time the weight) you would only get 4000 lbs 4000 miles. And capability does not go up linearly with weight! A flying wing is very efficient but can't perform miracles. This is simplistic but applicable.

Proposing that Germany, who had a dismal record of long range bombers (the Condor was not a long range bomber but a patrol aircraft with bombs), could at the end of the war, generate an effective atomic bomber is stretching it. Now if they had started earlier like 42 with a supported dedicated effort, they may have succeded, and only with the slow prop jobs. The first strike may have succeded with surprise but the second strike success would be unrealistic.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 28, 2006)

Didnt the early flying wing designs have stability issues? Ive heard one of the reasons the Northrup designs went by the wayside was for that very reason.

I suspect that without modern avioncs and flight computers, all of the flying wings from the 40's wouldn't have been able to perform any military missions. They might have been stable flying straight and true, but the moment they had to do some maneuvers, that's the end of it.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Didnt the early flying wing designs have stability issues? Ive heard one of the reasons the Northrup designs went by the wayside was for that very reason.
> 
> I suspect that without modern avioncs and flight computers, all of the flying wings from the 40's wouldn't have been able to perform any military missions. They might have been stable flying straight and true, but the moment they had to do some maneuvers, that's the end of it.



There were some reported porposing of the flying wings. The Air Force cancelled the B-49 because of pitch instability, however Northrop had built a stabilizer to correct that. Flying wings are inherently sensitive in the pitch axis. Also they need to have some type of lateral stability. The first B-2 proposal I saw had small vertical stabilizers slanted over the exhaust ducts. Computerized flight controls eliminated the need for that. There were some strange sidelights to the cancellation. Northrop had been told by the Secretary of the Air Force that if he wanted a contract he had to get with Consolidated (builders of the B-36) and they would be co-manufacters of the plane. Northrop went to Consolidated and turned down their proposal saying they effectively were taking over the B-49. The Secretary of the Air Force then cancelled the B-49. Sadly and strangely, the Air Force came and cut up all the built B-49s. I think they were about 17 of them. Not one was saved. As a post script, when the Secretary of the Air Force left office, he went to work for Consolidated. 

One B-49 did crash. It was piloted by Edwards, the man Edwards Air Force Base is named after.

I have flown the B-2 simulator and it flies very predictably, similar to the C-141 I use to fly. With computers, you just program it to fly the way you want.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 28, 2006)

I'd say that given the state of the art for what was known about flying wing technology in the mid 40's, they were not going to be military ready.

Prototypes can fly but that doesnt mean they're operations ready or even flyable.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I'd say that given the state of the art for what was known about flying wing technology in the mid 40's, they were not going to be military ready.
> 
> Prototypes can fly but that doesnt mean they're operations ready or even flyable.



The B-49 was definately flyable. It had received a production contract from the Air Force after several years of testing (the B-35, the prop version had been around for a while). In the years after the war, money was short and development time was expensive. Still, from what I have heard from the flight test, any issues were solvable. But without computers, it could have been tricky flying, like the premature F7U.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 29, 2006)

The stability issue are only valid for Northtrop flying wing designs, not for Horten. The reason lies in the discovery of the bell shaped lift distribution by Reimer Walter back in 1937. The Ho-I actually had some latent instability but with the Ho-II the problem was fixed and the Ho-IIF was fully acrobatic. Subsequent designs like Ho-V, Ho-parabola and Ho-VII, finally the Ho-IX always featured the bell shaped lift distribution and therefore should be classified as stable. Horten wrote Northtrop a letter in the late 40´s, explaining the effect of stability bell shaped lift distribution but he was ignored. The Ho-IX V1 (the unpowered glider) made some extensive flight tests and proved to be stable (as did the Ho-VII). However, there was always some criticism in the RLM about the stability of Horten´s gliders and they always had to prove their concepts. Once in 1944, the Ho-VII V1 made hard turns in tree top altitude at Rechline with one engine turned off to prove the stability. So far none of Hortens flying wing designs (including those of Argentinia) had a latent "Trudelneigung".


----------



## davparlr (Apr 29, 2006)

delcyros said:


> The stability issue are only valid for Northtrop flying wing designs, not for Horten. The reason lies in the discovery of the bell shaped lift distribution by Reimer Walter back in 1937. The Ho-I actually had some latent instability but with the Ho-II the problem was fixed and the Ho-IIF was fully acrobatic. Subsequent designs like Ho-V, Ho-parabola and Ho-VII, finally the Ho-IX always featured the bell shaped lift distribution and therefore should be classified as stable. Horten wrote Northtrop a letter in the late 40´s, explaining the effect of stability bell shaped lift distribution but he was ignored. The Ho-IX V1 (the unpowered glider) made some extensive flight tests and proved to be stable (as did the Ho-VII). However, there was always some criticism in the RLM about the stability of Horten´s gliders and they always had to prove their concepts. Once in 1944, the Ho-VII V1 made hard turns in tree top altitude at Rechline with one engine turned off to prove the stability. So far none of Hortens flying wing designs (including those of Argentinia) had a latent "Trudelneigung".



Actually the Horten designs did have some stability issues for weapons operation, which requires an increased level of stability over general flying. The Ho-IX displayed some Dutch Roll characteristics and some oscillations that he German AF said would need fixing for gunfire. These were thought to be solvable just like the B-35/49. It would have also required a vertical stablizer since flying in a crab (which may not be detectable) can cause some interesting flight situations. The B-2 handles this with computerized flight controls that automatically controls yaw. As for Northrop not understanding stability, he flew quite a variety of tailess vehicles with little mention on stability issue (N-1N, N-9M (which is still flying), XP-56 Black Bullet (which initially did have some yaw problems), MX-324/334 (rocket powered answer to Me-163 probably), JB-1 power bomb, JB-10 jet bomb, XP-79 Flyin Ram (which was lost on the initial test flight, though to be a trim tab failure). All of these were flown before the end of the war. This is quite a list of tailess designs. The H0-IX was never tested to the level of the B-35/49 due mainly to its crashing two hours after takeoff, so high speed stability with that airframe is strickly theoretical.

An interesting side note is that Walter Horten wanted to work for Northrop and Jack wanted him to come but was not able to have him come over. He told Walter to talk to USAFE but nothing else was heard. That is too bad. He would have helped Jack out enormously.

The Horten brothers are an interesting comparison to the Wright brothers. One brother was the theorectial leader with wild ideas of genius and the other was the level headed engineer. Only, the Wright brothers seem to get along a bit better.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 29, 2006)

The only way that Germany would have any plane ready to deliver even one significant bombload to the continental US would be to start in 1935 with a strategic bomber program and a nuclear bomb project. Anything else would have been a waste, see the amount of bombs and bombers over Germany, which has a significantly smaller landmass. It would take a fleet of Horten bombers and a few thousand nuclear weapons (or at least the US would have to think there were) to knock the US out of the war.

That being said, my favorite designs of the entire war are the German ones.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2006)

Bullock is right. Up through 1946, The US only had enough bomb grade fissionable material to build four bombs. And it took huge industrial size facilities to make it.


----------



## Twitch (May 1, 2006)

The Ho 18 would have had the range to make the run to the east US coast. It was designed to carry a 4,400-lb payload not 10,000 lbs. as Davparlr is talking about. 7,400 miles was ample. Most assuredly the Me 264's 9,300 mile range was ample wasn't it? And remember this was on internal fuel. There were hardpoints on the craft for external tankage on most of these craft, the Ho 229 included. 

At any rate making hip shot guesses wasn't what successful aero engineers did then or do now. It obvious that they calculated tankage and fuel consumption in regard to takeoff weight and payload carried to project a range sufficient to reach the east coast from Europe.

The Horten brothers were no jamokes who just fell off the turnip truck. They were designing and building flying machines since the late 20s. The Ho 229 which would have become the Go 229 was in development since 1934 in forerunner machines. The all wing concept was not an off the wall idea with no foundation. As Delcyros mentions the design was extensively tested and found suitable.

Lateral stability issues were going to be addressed but the war ended 1st. Whether the Ho 229 would have ended up with small vertical stabilizers is of no consequence. We must acknowledge that research and development phases of prototype aircraft address these type of issues and they are modified as needed. It is the nature of the whole process. It is 100% for sure the final Go 229 would have been as stable, serviceable craft. Any problems would have been solved. In fact the observed stability waver was at landing speeds. At high speed the ship was stable. 

The point isn't whether the Amerika bomber could have been built before the end of the war. It couldn't. The whole deal is simply acknowledging what is possible or not. The Me 264 was ready for the call to commence production in 1942. I most certainly could have been in service by 1944. Of course we know many things intervened to change that, Hitler was one of those factors, which was often the case. Would 2 tons of bombs per plane have made significant inroads in damaging the American homeland? Of course not.
Would a dirty nuke?

As Bullockracing says they would have needed to commence a long range nuclear bomber project earlier. The Weimar Republic, long before Hitler, began a rocket program that reached fruition as the A-4 (V-2.) The A-9/A-10 were ready for construction. This was a 2-stage ICBM capable of reaching the eastern US. Given a couple of years it would have been in service. Had research into nuclear energy been authorized in the 20s, as rockets were, men like Einstein would have been involved in solving the puzzle before the Nazi ever became a factor in Germany.

We look at the actual history and what happened and are sometimes oblivious to the luck of our fate. Had Germany's tedious cordialness with Russia lasted a year longer and the D-Day assault was repulsed the war could have easily droned on a couple more years. With a late start against Germany the Sovs would have been much farther from Germany in 1945 and with a year of reorganization after a failed D-Day the Allies strategy would have been altered also.

It is amazing how fate, sychronicity and pure dumb luck decide things sometimes. Minor changes of a million things one way or the other would have had far-reaching consequnces in the war. Just fun to speculate!


----------



## orcacomeback (May 9, 2006)

I think IL2


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2006)

U thought wrong....


----------



## kiwimac (May 16, 2006)

FW-190 D series and the TA-152


----------



## lesofprimus (May 16, 2006)

And in an example of perfectly bringing a topic back on track, kiwimac goes with a fighter aircraft as best WWII aircraft.... Could make for an intresting discussion, defending that one...

I can see why u would pick those 2 planes kiwi, but I cant overlook the contributions of other planes that impacted the war effort more....


----------



## syscom3 (May 16, 2006)

Twitch said:


> .........It was designed to carry a 4,400-lb payload not 10,000 lbs. as Davparlr is talking about. 7,400 miles was ample.



The nukes of that era weighed far in excess of 4400 lbs. Plus they were large devices that required big fat bomb bays. I dont think this "amerika bomber" would have the performance necessary to carry a very heavy bomb externally.



> Would a dirty nuke?



In those days, uranium enriched to the point of being usable in a dirty bomb was to valuable to be wasted like that. 



> As Bullockracing says they would have needed to commence a long range nuclear bomber project earlier. The Weimar Republic, long before Hitler, began a rocket program that reached fruition as the A-4 (V-2.) The A-9/A-10 were ready for construction. This was a 2-stage ICBM capable of reaching the eastern US. Given a couple of years it would have been in service. Had research into nuclear energy been authorized in the 20s, as rockets were, men like Einstein would have been involved in solving the puzzle before the Nazi ever became a factor in Germany.



You cant rush technology. Even if development had started in the 20's, untill key metallurgical and guidance issues were resolved, it wasnt going to "fly".


----------



## davparlr (May 16, 2006)

Twitch said:


> The Horten brothers were no jamokes who just fell off the turnip truck. They were designing and building flying machines since the late 20s. The Ho 229 which would have become the Go 229 was in development since 1934 in forerunner machines. The all wing concept was not an off the wall idea with no foundation. As Delcyros mentions the design was extensively tested and found suitable.



I hope this comment did not come about because I compared them to the Wright brothers. The Horten brothers were well ahead of their times and had great ideas. The Wright brothers were also well ahead of their times and implemented procedures that are still in use today in aerospace design. It is an honor to be a compared to the Wright brothers.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 16, 2006)

Horten Ho- Most Alien looking fighter

The Pancake didn't look that normal either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> And in an example of perfectly bringing a topic back on track, kiwimac goes with a fighter aircraft as best WWII aircraft.... Could make for an intresting discussion, defending that one...
> 
> I can see why u would pick those 2 planes kiwi, but I cant overlook the contributions of other planes that impacted the war effort more....




I agree with you and while I believe that the 190D and the 152 were the best fighters built, I go with the C-47.


----------



## jhor9 (May 18, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Best WW2 "PLANE." I would assume all around - yes this has been discussed before and its simple -
> *
> THE C-47!!!!*



I would tend to agree with flyboy. It was right up at or near the top of the list. It was used for everything except combat, and logistics play a very strong part in the winning of a war.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2006)

De Havilland Mosquito for me.

Reasons:

The De Havilland Mosquito was, in my opinion, the most useful single type of aircraft produced in World War II. Created in the face of fierce opposition from the officialdom, it flew through the war performing any task asked of it with great excellence. 

As a reconnaissance plane, the Mosquito was a high-speed spy. The first prototype (Serial #W4051) was handed over to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit (PRU) on 13 July 1941, it became the first Mosquito taken on charge by the RAF. #W4054 and #W4055 followed on 22 July and 8 August respectively to the, now, No.1 PRU which was equipped with Spitfires, Ansons, Wellingtons and now, Mosquitos. Beginning in September No.1 PRU received seven more production PR.Mk.1s #W4056 and #W4058-63. 
On 16 September, 1941, the first PR.Mk.1 went into action over the Bay of Biscay. The generator broke down, forcing the cameras to have no power. Sqn. Leader Rupert Clarke aborted the sortie, flying #W4055 at full pace he managed to out-run three pursuing Bf-109s at 23,000 feet. The following day the same crew, and the same plane returned over enemy terrority to photograph Brest, La Pallice and Bordeaux, they arrived back at Benson at 1745. This was the first successful PR sortie by a Mosquito. 

The PR.VIII Mosqutio arrived in service with No. 540 Sqn. based at RAF Leuchars. Equipped with the Merlin 61 1,565-hp engine, these Mosqutios could fly high altitude missions over enemy terrority. These planes began their career on 19 February, 1943 then continued to carry out battle-assessment and target recon for the rest of the war. The PR.VIII Mosqutio also pictured the experimental rocket site at Peenemunde, and confirmed the existence of the V-1 flying-bomb along with it's dispersed launch sites. 

Next came the PR.IX and PR.XVI Mosqutio. No.544 Sqn. was the first squadron to be equipped with the PR.IX, and it's first sortie was on the night 13/14 September 1943 when Flight Lieutenant R.L.C Blythe covered Vannes. 
The PR.XVI began production in November 1943, with 100-Imp gal drop tanks these aircraft could cover 2,000 miles. On 19 Feburary 1944 a PR.XVI brought back photos of Berlin despite German interceptors had the skies covered. PR.XVI were despatched to No.544 Sqn. in March 1944, then No.540 in July 1944. The first were urgently despatched to No.140 Sqn. 2nd TAF, and helped in mapping out Normandy for the June invasion. The PR.IV, IX and XVI served across Europe, Middle East and the Far East. 

The PR.Mk.34 came into service in June 1945. These were sent to the airfield at Cocos Island. They made recon flights to Kuala Lumpur and Port Swettenham. Thirty-Eight sorties had been made by this type by VJ-Day. The PR.Mosquito soldiered on as the PR.Mk.34A with the RAF until 15 December, 1955 with No.81 Sqn. based at Seletar, Singapore. 

The USAAF was the second largest operator of the Mosqutio during the war. It received 40 Canadian-built F-8 Mosquitos and 80 PR.XVI Mosquitos , the USAAF did not use the F-8s operationally but the PR.XVI with the US 8th AF were used from 1944 right up until VE-Day. Operating at heights up to and including 37,000 feet these blue and red Mosqutios performed photo- and weather recon and chaff-dispensing duties. 

To be continued... ... next time : Night Fighter Mosquito.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

I am with the C-47 for reasons stated.

If we break it down it goes like this for me:

Overall: C-47
Fighter: Ta-152
Bomber: B-29
Ground Attack: Il-2 (this one is debatable for me though.
Transport/Cargo: C-47


----------



## Gnomey (May 19, 2006)

I'd agree with that list Adler, as you say though the ground attack is debatable it could be one of the IL-2, FW-190F, Tiffy, JU-87G or the P-47...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

Exactly there are so many to choose from. I actually think I lean more to the Tiffy or the Fw-190F.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2006)

Night-Fighter Mosquito:

The night-fighter prototype (#W4052) was the second Mosquito to fly when it took to the skies on 15 May, 1941. It flew less than six months that the first Mosquito prototype, was officially marked the F.Mk.II. It differed from the bomber prototype by having reinforced wing-spars, four Hispano 20 mm cannon, four .303 Browning machine-guns, bulletproof windscreen and an AI.Mk.IV radar. 

Twenty-one of the first fifty Mosquitos built were night-fighters. Now designated the NF.Mk.II, these planes reached frontline service in January 1942. The night-fighter was the last Mosquito to reach service, being declared operational with No.157 Sqn. in April, 1942. This was followed by 23 Sqn. in July, which flew long-range intruder missions over Northern Europe to catch returning German bombers. The unit then moved to Malta where they destroyed seventeen aircraft in their first three months of service on the island. 
At this point in the war aircraft flying over Axis Europe were not allowed to carry radar. This was to prevent the technology falling into Axis hands. Instead, the NF.Mk.IIs used for the intruder role were equipped with the 'Gee' navigational aid and designated NF.Mk.II (Special) or NF.Mk.II (Intruder). 466 NF.Mk.IIs were completed. 

The next variant was the NF.Mk.XII which introduced the AI.Mk.VIII centimetric radar into service. The inclusion of this new radar in a nose radome necessitated the removal of the Browning machine-guns, all types excluding the NF.Mk.XV after this were solely equipped with the four 20-mm cannon. This variant entered service with 85 Sqn. and all 97 NF.Mk.XIIs were converted from NF.Mk.IIs. 
The next variant was the NF.Mk.XIII. This was based on the FB.Mk.IV Mosquito with strengthened wings. This variant carried 50-Imp gal external fuel tanks and was equipped with the AI.Mk.VIII radar. This variant, along with the NF.Mk.XII equipped ten RAF units. Fifty NF.Mk.XIII were fitted with nitrous-oxide injection systems to provide their Merlins with extra power above 20,000 feet for short periods of time.

The Mosquito was suffering from the performance of it's radar at this time, so the next variant introduced the American-built SCR-720 centimetric radar. (UK designation AI.Mk.X). This came into the NF.Mk.XVII which was another conversion of the NF.MK.II built with the AI.Mk.X. One hundred were converted into this type, and it scored it's first kill with No.25 Sqn. in February 1944. 
The next variant was the NF.Mk.XIX which was a new-build. To offset the drag caused by the AI.Mk.X this variant was fitted with Merlin 25s rated at 1,635-hp. These were either equipped with the AI.Mk.VIII or X radar, and introduced new developments into the night sky. These included the rear-facing radar 'Monica' and the 'Serrate' which picked up German AI transmissions. The NF.Mk.XIX put these to good effect while protecting Bomber Commands 'heavies' from Luftwaffe night-fighters. 

The NF.Mk.30 was the final night-fighter mark to enter service in the war. It differed from the Mk.XIX in having Merlin-70 series engines with two-stage superchargers and cabin pressurisation. These entered service in mid-1944 and had equipped nine RAF squadrons by the wars end, half of these Mosquitos were used in the bomber support role. 

Another night-fighter Mosquito was the NF.Mk.XV. Converted from the B.Mk.XVI during 1942 to counter the expected threat from the Ju-86 high-altitude bomber. Equipped with Merlin-61 two-stage engines, four-bladed propellers and extended wing-tips. It flew for the first time in August 1942 but the threat failed to materialise and the type was recalled from service after five more B.Mk.IVs had also been converted. 

Prowling the night skies, this plane in all it's variants proved to be a thorn in the Luftwaffe's side too big to pluck. The Mosqutio saw the bombers through the network of German aerial defences, and successfully made the German hunters, the hunted. Also while performing night intruder missions over North-Europe and Italy the night-fighter Mosquito kept the Luftwaffe crews on their toes and alert, as they were not safe until they were out of their planes. At any time a Mosquito could appear out of the night sky.

Next...Fighter-Bomber Mosquito

::Attached Picture:: Mosquito NF.Mk.II (Special) of No.23 Sqdn.


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2006)

For ground attack, the P38 and P47 performed admirably in this role.

Both of them could either fly escort for bombers up at 30,000 ft, or blow things up on the ground.

In the PTO, it was the B25 gunships that performed the ground attack role that shredded the IJA and IJN.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> For ground attack, the P38 and P47 performed admirably in this role.
> 
> Both of them could either fly escort for bombers up at 30,000 ft, or blow things up on the ground.



I agree and that is why the P-47 is my favorite US fighter/ground attack. The Tiffy and the Fw-190 could do it just as well as those too though.


----------



## ricardox (Jun 12, 2006)

hey the p51 was rated the best fighter of any age and the b52 the best bomber of any age guys get your heads out of the comic books lol


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2006)

ricardox said:


> hey the p51 was rated the best fighter of any age and the b52 the best bomber of any age guys get your heads out of the comic books lol


And your cynical attitude is not appreciated so pull your head out of your derriere - read the full thread [email protected], *best overall aircraft of WW2.*

If you want to stay around I suggest you read some of the other threads and get familiar with some of the members before you start flapping yap!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)

ricardox said:


> hey the p51 was rated the best fighter of any age and the b52 the best bomber of any age guys get your heads out of the comic books lol



Alright *******. One more comment like that and myself or another admin is going to give you warning. Consider this your one and only verbal warning. Damn newbies who come on here and talk **** and dont know what they are talking about!

1st of all there are many planes that were just as good or even better than teh P-51D. Everheard of the Ta-152, P-47N, Spitfire 21? Guess not because you have your head so far up your ***!

Second of all what are you talking about comic books. Dont you have school tomorrow? Shouldn't you be at home eating with your parents? There are many people here who have experience in flying here. I am a Blackhawk Guy, Flyboy has flown just about anything, and many many more people with flying experience. Everyone else has experience when it comes to maintenance: myself and Flyboy both have A&P Liscenses, Erich is a world of knowledge of WW2 aircraft, even works with WW2 aircraft at Chino, Syscom is a world of knowledge as well as plan_D, and Lancaster Kicks *** well he knows a lot about the Lancaster, and Les knows a hell of lot about aircraft as well.

So hey do me a favor get your *** out of your comic book and learn about the people here before you make lame *** stupid posts like that. If you choose to come back and be a good member of this forum then you may do so, but I suspect you will run like a little girl.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 12, 2006)

Im too exhausted to add anything about the above meatball that hasnt already been said...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2006)

and the P-51 was far from the best fighter ever, she kinda sucked as a dogfighter she's only so famous due to her range and propaganda...........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2006)

She's famous because she carried the 8th AF on her shoulders to Berlin and back. That's not propaganda.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2006)

She was good at what she did but one on one she was only as good as everything else out there. As FlyboyJ put it, there are many aircraft that performed just as good.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2006)

How about we define the "best" plane as the one that had the most impact in the theater it flew in, during various phases of the war.

I would say for the ETO:
Me-109 at the start of the war
Spitfire from the time of the end of the BoB to the introduction of the FW190
FW190 up to the introduction of the P38
P51 from spring 1944 to the end of the war.

For the PTO:
Zero at the start of the war untill the introduction of the P38
P38 till the end of the war
F4U as a carrier based fighter


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2006)

I would agree with you for the most part and think that you are pretty much correct in your account, but you have to look at who made the what impact for who.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 13, 2006)

I would disagree only with the Fw 190 up until the P-38.... I would go with the Fw 190 up until the P-51D masses......


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2006)

The reason I chose the P38, was its phenominal range.

It brought the fight to the Luftwaffe and changed the course of the daylight heavy bombing campaign.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 13, 2006)

That I will agree with...


----------



## Pete57 (Jun 14, 2006)

Hi

My first post here and glad to be 'onboard' 

If we include jet fighters, I'd like to suggest the Lockheed P-80A Shooting Star.

Although its operational career in WW II can only be considered very brief, two examples of the pre-production model - the YP-80A - had been flying in Italy as the MTO detatchment of Project Extraversion (the shipment of 4 YPs to the ETO and MTO, for demonstration and field-test purposes), since early 1945 (they had been shipped from the Con-US on 12/26/1944), and in April 1945 they were with the 1st FG, then based at Lake Lesina, where they were being flown by both Wright Field test-pilots and regular, 1st FG, fighter pilots.

According to Mr. James Bertoglio, then a photographer with the 1st FG, at least one mission was flown 'up north', i.e. toward the front line.

Regards


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2006)

The only reason I would not count the P-80 is because we have no basis on it. We do not know how it would have handled with a Me-262. We dont know how it would have handled in combat at all.

Welcome to the site by the way.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 14, 2006)

Ditto...


----------



## Pete57 (Jun 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The only reason I would not count the P-80 is because we have no basis on it. We do not know how it would have handled with a Me-262. We dont know how it would have handled in combat at all.
> 
> Welcome to the site by the way.



Thanks for the warm welcome

The P-80A was well tried and tested after the war, and its F-80C development saw combat in Korea, so I think there are enough elements to compare the two aircraft.

A mockup combat test was flown in 1946 between a production P-80A and a captured Me-262 at Wright Field, and the results showed how the two aircraft had very similar flight performances

The 262 was found to have a slight edge in critical mach-number as well as an armament better suited for the role of bomber destroyer, while the P-80A had a slight advantage in terms of maximum speed, climb rate, and absolute ceiling, with a definite edge in terms of maneuverability, thanks to its boosted ailerons that gave it a phenomenal (for the time) roll rate – if memory serves me right, in the region of 360°/sec - whereas the 262’s was further penalized by the position of its engine pods. 

One item that had been seriously overlooked by the German designers was fitting the 262 with speed-brakes, as this prevented it from exploiting its major advantage over the P-80, i.e. its higher, critical mach-number, that would have allowed it to get away from the Shooting Star in a prolonged dive.

An important factor in my opinion seldom considered in a theoretical air-to-air combat, is the careful handling that both the General Electric I-40 (J-33) and the Jumo 109-004 required; this condition, if not quickly corrected, could lead to ‘interesting’ situations like flameout and compressor-stalls (the axial-compressor of the Jumo built with the technologies of the time being even more prone that the I-40’s centrifugal-type).
Indeed a severely limiting factor in the combat flight-envelope for both aircraft, and one nonetheless common to all early jets, with the possible exception of the Rolls Royce Derwent I engines installed on the British Gloster Meteor F.MK.IIIs which – according to the Aircraft’s Pilot Notes – could accelerate thru a compressor-stall, without damage to the engine itself.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2006)

Great info Pete and welcome..


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 14, 2006)

I never knew a mock combat was flown between the P80 and Me-262.

You have more info on that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2006)

Yeah I never knew that also.

Good info though Pete. I like how you talked about negatives in both aircraft and showed the good and bad of each. Keep up the good posting.


----------



## Pete57 (Jun 15, 2006)

I have seen the mockup combat mentioned on several publications: I'd like to be more precise, but all my books and magazines are still 'in a limbo' as I have recently moved into a new apartment - following four moves in a 10 month period!!! - and my personal library is currently split between three, different locations.

There was a similar discussion on the TGP Community forum a couple of years ago and one of the participants claimed - again if memory serves me right - that two or three mockup combats had been flown at W/F, with the first involving the very first P-80 prototype (the XP-80) which did not fare too good against a Me-262A-1a/U3.
This makes sense, considering how the XP-80 was underpowered (it had a De Havilland H-1 engine - one of the De Havilland Goblin MKI prototypes), while the possible reason for first using the XP-80 instead of one of the YP-80As or P-80A-1s was that the production aircraft where busily involved in a program aimed at ironing out the type's bugs.
As well, the same individual had published a 'comparative table' to support the claims, taken from the publication where he had found the information. 
I contacted him to get more details, but unfortunately, there was no follow up.

I'm planning to pay the Natl. Archives a visit, someday, to see if I can get a copy of the report(s) as well as to find more information on the 1st FG YP-80As in Italy.

Regards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2006)

That would be cool.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2006)

I wonder if there are other mock combats from the post war period using captured axis aircraft, that the folks from Wright-Patterson did.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 15, 2006)

I also often read about this flyoff but so far no sources have come to light to me. That´s an interesting post regarding the Dervent-I, Pete.
However, I am a bit sceptical about 360 d/s roll rate. One advantage the Me-262 had over it´s contemporary jets was a generally superior high speed handling (>400 mp/h). The P-80 was a much more modern jet but as You already pointed out, the plane was not combat ready anyway. Evaluation of the prototypes lasted well after wars end. The planes send to europe had to be grounded after a P-80 accident.


----------



## Pete57 (Jun 15, 2006)

delcyros said:


> The planes send to europe had to be grounded after a P-80 accident.



True. It involved one of the two ETO Project Extraversion YPs, and it took place at 11:40AM on January 28, 1945 on a test-flight at BAD 1, Burtonwood (UK); the aircraft S/N 44-83026, Lockheed C/N 1005, broke up in mid-air, due to a tailpipe flange-attachment failure, and crashed taking the life of Major Frederic Austin Borsodi of Wright Field's Air Service Command.
(For details, please see http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/YP-80A 44-83026.htm )

It appears, however, that the flight restrictions had been removed by the time the two aircraft were delivered to the 1st FG.
I received an e-mail from the son of one of the 1st FG pilots who flew the aircraft - Maj. Ed LaClare - in reply to a request for information I had sent, dealing, amongst others, with details on the flight indoctrination.
Mr. Ed LaClare Jr., told me that, from what his father had told him, it was a pretty quick affair, with ground school lasting but a few days.

The MTO YPs did not experience any major problem and routinely flew mock combat against the conventional, Allied fighters stationed in Italy.

Nonetheless, the YP-80As and P-80A-1s initially showed an appalling safety record; this, however, could not be attributed to technical problems only, with overconfidence on the pilots' side, and incomplete knowledge of some of the high speed problems, playing a not so minor part.

Regards.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 15, 2006)

Absolutely. There was an often underrated pioneering aspect in the aviation world of the mid 40´s.
I personally tend to think that the Bell P 59 Airacobra could have been what the allies needed. It has an excellent thrust-to weight ratio, a common type wing configuration and layout, a decent, fuselage mounted gun array. The only thing it lacks was speed. A thinner wing and proper aerodynamic engine shildings could do the job.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2006)

But would the P-59 been maneuvarable eneogh to be a decent jet fighter in WW2?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2006)

Its off topic here, but since the P-59 has been mentioned, I understand that the -59 residing at Chino is on the list for having a flyable restoration done to it.

Wouldnt that be a site to see a -59, a P80 and an F86 all in the air together?


----------



## Glider (Jun 15, 2006)

I am afraid that I wouldn't count the P80 as being a WW2 plane as I believe it didn't fly any combat missions. I understand four were shipped out with the maximum haste so they could claim to have fought in the war but the two that went to the ETO didn't fly and but the two that went to the MTO might have flown some unofficial missions as they had a little extra time but hadn't been officially cleared.

The title of the thread is 'What was the Best WW2 aircraft'. For that I would try to find one plane that dominated its role across all the countries involved in the conflict.

My personal choice based on the Title of the Thread is the C47 Dakota. There were transports that carried a heavier payload a longer distance, but no plane dominated its role to such a degree in all theaters.

Even if you allowed the P80, the fact that you could have a good debate as to its merits compared to the Vampire, Me262, He162, Meteor III (with the longer nacelles) would prove that it wouldn't dominate the others.

So apologies to you jet jockeys, its the C47


----------



## davparlr (Jun 15, 2006)

Glider said:


> My personal choice based on the Title of the Thread is the C47 Dakota. There were transports that carried a heavier payload a longer distance, but no plane dominated its role to such a degree in all theaters.



Since I think the C-47/DC-3/R4D/Russian Li-2 is the most significant aircraft of the first 50 years of flight (excluding the Wright Flyer), I agree with your assessment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2006)

YEP!!!!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 15, 2006)

Agreed.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2006)

As I said before I agree as well.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 16, 2006)

I agree too as I also have said before.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 16, 2006)

delcyros said:


> Absolutely. There was an often underrated pioneering aspect in the aviation world of the mid 40´s.
> I personally tend to think that the Bell P 59 Airacobra could have been what the allies needed. It has an excellent thrust-to weight ratio, a common type wing configuration and layout, a decent, fuselage mounted gun array. The only thing it lacks was speed. A thinner wing and proper aerodynamic engine shildings could do the job.



I disagree. The P-59 was a dog. It did not meet what was called for in terms of specification. It did however pave the way for jets for the US. You may want to read up Joe Baugher's article on the P-59:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p59.html

The performance of this aircraft wasn't even a match for the modern piston powered fighters of the day, so it would likely have not done well in combat.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 16, 2006)

Nice article, thanks a lot.
I do not think that the P-59A/B would have been crap with better engines. By late 1944 at earliest, this plane could have seen service over europe. Engine layout allows for an easy replacement (image 2 Ghost engines) and the psychological factor that the allies also had a jet is not to underestimate.
Other than piston A/C, the jet´s can keep top speed for a much longer time, that´s good to intercept V-1. The speed lag is worrisome but this remains on aerodynamic worse designed nacelles and the engines itself. By then a good jet engine was simply missed everywhere, not just in Germany alone.
Imagine a P-59 (C) with 2 1500 lbs jet engines and drop tanks. Excellent powerload, thrust to weight ratio, time to altitude and roll rate are expected.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 16, 2006)

By the time the P59 would have had better engines, the P80 would be available.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 17, 2006)

I stress the opposite, Syscom. Engines were avaiable in mid 44, when the P-80 was in preliminary prototype stage. The P59 would have been avaiable by then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2006)

Im with delycos on this however I disagree that it would have been better with better engines. Larger engines mean more weight which in turn effects the performance of an allready sluggish aircraft.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 17, 2006)

In general, yes. But in this specific case: no.
The reason lays down in the technical advance by 1942-44 in the jet tech. departement. The early jet engines to fit Meteor-III and XP-59 were based on the Welland engines with reversed flow. This made the engines comparably heavy. The Ghost engine of 1942 and the GE J 33 had direct flow, thus increasing the thrust output while in the meantime reducing the weight fuel consumption considerably. That and the fact that the P59 B with direct flow engines (not J-33 sadly) had such a superior thrust to weight ratio (> 0.32, which is better than either P-80, Meteor-III, He-162, Ar-234 and Me-262) makes me think it could have been a decent jet fighter. Not as fast as a Me-262 but more maneuverable, avaiable in numbers, with excellent acceleration, good turning abilities (at least for a 1st gen. jet), excellent climb and more than a match for german piston A/C and Ar-234 / Me-262 jet bomber.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 17, 2006)

You are basing that on a number of assumptions though. Was the airframe designed for higher powered engines? Could it have handled manuevering at the higher speeds? You have to remember that the US was behind the Germans and the Brits and were the last of the three to even try their hand at building a jet engine and airframe. Both the Germans and Brits were already flying jets before the US even built one. The P-59 was a good start into the jet age, but I think you are making it out to be a better aircraft than it really was.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 17, 2006)

delcyros said:


> I stress the opposite, Syscom. Engines were avaiable in mid 44, when the P-80 was in preliminary prototype stage. The P59 would have been avaiable by then.



Remember that General Electric was having a terrible time building the engines in enough numbers.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 17, 2006)

You are correct but GE had the basic tooling level to finally solve this problem. Indeed the US was superior in this field and paved the way for allied jet engine mass production. I admit that many assumptions are given and the final outcome -strongly hypothetic- is somehow questionable. The P-59 wouldn´t have been a world beater but I tend to think it just got not the credit it desires. I might be wrong, true.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 17, 2006)

delcyros said:


> You are correct but GE had the basic tooling level to finally solve this problem. ......


.

The had the tooling but couldnt get the engine design to work reliabily. The problems were eventually solved.

As in any racical new design, you just cant push technology and not expect delays or problems.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2006)

Exactly something the Germans had to deal with the whole time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 18, 2006)

using the P-59 offered no advantage over high-performance piston engined fighters, it'd be less reliable, consume more fuel and need more pilot training at a time when America was shitting out pilots, 413mph and 240miles range (P-59A, increased in the B)? what'd be the point, where the hell would she even fight? she'd have to be right on the front and the americans proberly weren't willing to base new technology like that right at the front, if for no other reason because the Germans would just laugh at it, given they were so far ahead, and seriously, who puts a 37mm in a fighter in 1945?


----------



## delcyros (Jun 18, 2006)

Only Bell and some soviet ground attack A/C. As I pointed out, the development of the P-59 was abandoned to early to give conclusions about it´s potential. The-B with J-31 GE 5 had a top speed of ~450 mp/h and a range of ~ 440 miles at medium altitude (~650 miles at high altitude and economic cruise if we include the time to climb) Put some drop tanks on it, and some aerodynamic cleaning of the engine nacelles and You get a P-59 [C] doing some 480 mp/h with 600 miles medium alt range (~850 at altitude) in mid 1944. Improve the J-31 engines a little further and 500 mp/h are at least possible.
The rapid development of the P-80 renders these thoughts hypothetical.
The nose configuration allowed for an easy gunnery redesign. I am pretty confident that the airframe could handle the weight and recoil of a P-38´s armement. The 37 mm truly is a silly weapon. For some mysterious reasons must have been liked by Bell.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2006)

Not sure but didn't the P-80 or was it the P-59 nose that was based off of the P-38's anyhow?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not sure but didn't the P-80 or was it the P-59 nose that was based off of the P-38's anyhow?


The P-80's nose was a P-38's nose upside down...

I think the wing tips and stabilizer tips are the same as well..


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2006)

Flyboy, wasnt the shape of the nose and inlets one of the non-engine related causes for the delays in the P80 program?

I could have sworn that there was an issue with the shape of the nose that produced turbulent flow around the engine inlets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy, wasnt the shape of the nose and inlets one of the non-engine related causes for the delays in the P80 program?
> 
> I could have sworn that there was an issue with the shape of the nose that produced turbulent flow around the engine inlets.



That's why the turned it upside down...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-80's nose was a P-38's nose upside down...
> 
> I think the wing tips and stabilizer tips are the same as well..



Thanks that is exactly what I thought.


----------



## Pete57 (Jun 20, 2006)

I don't agree with the statement that the P-80 cannot be considered a WW 2 plane based on the fact that it did not fly any combat missions.
Indeed I still have not been able to find details of the operations with the 1st FG, but we cannot flatly rule out the possibility that a more ‘active’ role was not tried.

It appears that the Allied Headquarter were extremely cautious in preventing their new technology from falling into the wrong hands, and initially ordered the RAF's Gloster Meteors to fly missions that were 'away' from the frontlines.
Later on, when it had become clear that the Luftwaffe was a spent force, this order was partly lifted, but the Allies were all along extremely careful to keep the Meteors from falling into Soviet hands, as it was becoming clear who the next ‘enemy’ was soon going to be.

The deployment of the 1st FG YP-80As, to airfields further north, would have given them the possibility of intercepting the Arado 234s of the Kommando Sommer, that were regularly reconnoitering the Allied lines, without the risk of YPs falling into German hands: indeed a hypothetical scenario, but one that cannot be right away dismissed, especially when one considers the odd coincidence of the beginning of the 1st FG involvement with the Shooting Star, only weeks after the appearance of the Arados over the Allied lines.

If we consider WW 2 aircraft only those that, albeit delivered to more or less operational units, did not take part in actual combat missions we have to leave out such outstanding aircraft as the Dornier 335, the Focke Wulf Ta-154 to quote some.

I consider the Douglas C-47 one of the greatest aircraft not just of WW 2, but also of Korea, Vietnam and many other large and small conflicts, too many in numbers to list and it is an undisputable fact that it dominated its role.

If this post was ‘Greatest WW II Aircraft’ then I would agree with Glider, although many could claim the title for such airplanes as the B-29 that with only two, single missions brought the conflict to a grinding halt, but this post is ‘BEST Aircraft of WW II’.

Perhaps it is just too easy to think of fighters as THE decisive weapon of the war, they are fast and nimble, they wreck havoc amongst the enemy aircraft, fighters and bombers alike, they are flown by flamboyant men, sometimes too cocky, arrogant and over confident; perhaps their exploits overshadow those of the lumbering bombers and transport planes, but it is a fact that no bombs could be carried over a target, and no army could be replenished from the air and protected from enemy attacks without the air superiority which is a fighter pilot’s job to gain, and – yes – the jet propulsion was the way ahead for the fighters, even in WW II, as later conflicts were to prove.

The P-80’s merits and shortcomings can be compared also against the He-162, the Gloster Meteor, and the Vampire (I have already compared it to the Me-262)

With a maximum speed of 562mph (904kph) at 19,500ft (6,000mt), the Salamander was probably faster than the P-80A at medium altitudes, but that is about the only area where the 162 had an edge. Conversely, the aircraft was troubled by many other problems the worst of them being an incredibly short endurance – about 30 minutes – that claimed the life of at least two operational pilots, and a vicious intolerance to maneuvers that involved abrupt rudder input (not an infrequent occurrence in a dogfight) that claimed, amongst others, the life of a RAF pilot testing the aircraft in England, after the end of the hostilities.
To Heinkel’s credit, these problems stemmed from a hasty development of the machine following the Luftwaffe’s urge to put it into operational service as soon as possible.

The ‘longer nacelle’ Meteor IIIs were designated by Gloster G.41Es 
Early in the Meteor’s development program, Gloster had realized that the aircraft was speed penalized by aerodynamic parasite-drag the tests revealing that the original short and ‘fat’ nacelles were responsible for that.
Consequently, the nacelles of one of the F.Mk.Is - serialled EE211/G and fitted with Power Jets W2/700 engines, each delivering about 2000lb (900kg) of static thrust - were modified.
At first (November 1944) only the front portion was stretched, but later on (March 1945), following the promising results thus far achieved, the rear portion was stretched as well.
It was determined that the total modification afforded the aircraft a 60mph (97kph) speed gain at sea level.
This modification was applied on the production line of the Meteor F.Mk.III, to the last 15 example then built, but several of the earlier production aircraft were later on converted by means of kits.
The maximum speed range of the short-nacelle, Derwent I engined Meteor – the G.41Ds – varied between 458mph (737kph) at sea level and 465mph (748kph) at 25,000ft (7600ft), as determined by the tests, between February and March 1945, conducted by one the F.Mk.Is, serial DG223/G and fitted with two Rolls Royce W.2B/37 – the Derwent I prototypes.
In turn, the maximum speed of the long nacelle F.Mk.III, is quoted as being 486mph (782kph) at sea level and 493mph (793kph) at 30,000ft (9100mt): a good improvement but still short of the P-80A’s performance.

Compared to the P-80A, the Meteor’s roll-rate was penalized by the wing mounted pods, and by its ‘aileron heaviness’, that Gloster had intentionally designed into the Mk.III in order to prevent the airframe’s overstressing, this more than offseting the Meteor’s maneuvering advantage given by its incredibly low wing load (38% lower than the P-80A’s). 
As well, the Shooting Star showed a 15 % higher initial climb rate and a slightly higher (2%) ceiling.

CONTINUED...


----------



## Pete57 (Jun 20, 2006)

...CONTINUED FROM MY PREVIOUS POST.

The De Havilland Vampire flew about six months after the Gloster Meteor, and until the introduction of the Meteor’s MK.IV variant, the Vampire displayed superior performances.
I have always wondered what made the British Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP) favor Gloster’s design over De Havilland’s.
Could 6 months really matter that much or was it rather a case of political meddling?
Not only the Vampire offered better overall performances, but it was also simpler, cheaper and faster to produce, and the airframe and the engine were produced by the same company thus easing the critical exchange of information, needed in the design and development stage, between the airframe and the engine manufacturers.
The higher performing Vampire could have been delivered sooner and in greater number to the operational units.
Some claim that the beginning of its production had to be postponed due to the Meteor’s prioritization and especially De Havilland’s own commitment with the Mosquito production, this problem eventually leading, in 1945, to designating a second production source: the English Electric Company, at Preston.
I believe, this could have already been done as early as 1944 when the tests at Boscombe Down were already showing the Vampire’s superiority over the Meteor IIIs!

Praised by all those who flew it, the DH100 was in many ways similar to the German He-162 (both designs were very simple and aimed at using non-strategic materials)
One negative trait the Vampire F.MK.I, shared with its German counterpart was a very short endurance, also in the order of 30 minutes, on internal fuel only; unlike the Salamander, though the De Havilland design allowed the fitting of drop tanks under the wings that in part solved the problem.

The P-80’s prototype – the XP-80 – and the Vampire’s – the E.6/41 – were powered by the same turbojet, the Halford H.1A, later designated the De Havilland Goblin 1.
It should be noticed that, even though the higher weight of the XP-80 made it underpowered with this engine, both aircraft reached a similar speed, about 500mph (800kph), showing a more aerodynamic design on the XP-80 side.

The Vampire’s wing-load was some 4% lower than the P-80’s but the latter’s hydraulically assisted ailerons may have offset this slight advantage.
With a speed of 530mph (855kph) at sea level, the Vampire F.Mk.I was slightly slower than the P-80A, that reached at the same altitude, a speed of 558mph (898kph), the Shooting Star had a slightly better initial climb rate – 4580fpm against the Vampire’s 4375fpm – and enjoyed a 5000ft (1500mt) advantage in ceiling.

So far as the turbulent flow around the P-80 inlets is concerned, this had nothing to do with the aircraft nose section’s shape, but rather with the relatively slow boundary layer around the fuselage ‘stagnating’ inside the air intakes themselves.
The phenomenon was called ‘duct rumble’ and at times it could be clearly heard by observers on the ground.
In order to investigate it, Kelly Johnson rode ‘piggy back’ on one flight with either Milo Burcham or Tony LeVier at the controls, and he correctly diagnosed the cause.
The problem was corrected with the installation of so called ‘splitter plates’ that removed the boundary layer from within the air intakes and vented it out thru some slots in the upper and lower portion of the intakes themselves.
This fix was introduced sometimes in the P-80A-1’s production, but some previous aircraft (one of the two XP-80As and the XF-14 prototype, off the top of my head) were fitted with hand-made specimens that were of slightly different shape.

The Bell P-59 Airacomet.
Unlike the first jets of Germany and England, that were designed mainly as engine test beds, Bell designed America’s first jet, from the beginning as a fighter, with the equipment and armament to perform this task.
The choice of the Bell Aircraft Company, may seem questionable as they had no real experience in the design of high performance fighter, although their P-39 Airacobra, was turned into a dog by the AAF decision to remove the turbocharger from the production versions to achieve an aerodynamically cleaner design.
The company’s lack of involvement in any major project at the time and their close location to the engine factory, being probably major, contributing factors. 
The P-59’s 37mm cannon armament, probably also reflected the company’s previous experience and its later versions – the M-9 and M-10, fitted on the P-63 – were more than decent guns.
If I remember correctly, most of the Airacomet’s drag related problems lay in the excessive wing thickness and in the wing/air intake interaction. I believe that, short of a radical re-design, the aircraft - that in its original configuration was slightly inferior, in performances, to the Gloster Meteor F.Mk. I - would always have been inferior to the Meteor F.Mk.III and following versions, the Meteor being indeed an aerodynamically cleaner design.
One field where the P-59 was outperforming any other jet of the time, was the maximum ceiling it could reach, with one aircraft setting an unofficial record of 47,600ft (45,512mt), thanks to its generous wing surface and consequently low wing loading.
Perhaps, it could have been used in a role similar to that of the Lockheed U-2, over a decade later, by replacing its armament with a set of cameras, but then again, would it have been immune from interceptions by the Me-163? 

Bell had already designed a completely new aircraft – the XP-59B – that of the original design maintained only the designation; unfortunately for them, the AAF had already decided to put America’s jet fighter’s future into the capable hands of Loockheed Aircraft Company: the rest – as they say – is history!

Later still, Bell submitted a new proposal for a long range jet escort fighter - the P-83.
This was the Airacomet’s ‘big brother’ with a similar configuration, but with a thinner wing, and more streamlined jet pods that housed two J-33 turbojets (the same engine that powered the P-80) and it was eventually to receive an armament of six of the new T17E3, .60cal. heavy machine-guns.
Except for a greater range, the aircraft showed no improvement over the P-80 and following the construction of two prototypes, one of which used for ram-jet development work, any further development was abandoned, thus ending Bell’s involvement with fixed-wing aircraft design and production business.

My apologies for a long post.

Regards.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2006)

Great post Pete.

Although you argue your points well, I still think that the P80 cannot be considered a WW2 aircraft simply because it was activated right when the war ended and never went on a combat mission. Too bad it was never moved to the PTO where it could have made an interesting "kamikazi" interceptor.

I'd say the best planes of the second world war, when it ended in Aug 1945 were:
Cargo: C47
Fighter: P51
Heavy Bomber: B29
Medium/Light Bomber: A26
Naval fighter: F4U


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 20, 2006)

Is that Italy Texas your from if so I got a speeding ticket there and a lesson in Courtroom etiquette


----------



## delcyros (Jun 20, 2006)

Time for another jet thread. Good read, pete. 
There is much to adress but I also think it would require to open a specific jet thread, since for ww2 timeframe this is kind of off-topic.
Cheers!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2006)

Pete57 said:


> So far as the turbulent flow around the P-80 inlets is concerned, this had nothing to do with the aircraft nose section’s shape, but rather with the relatively slow boundary layer around the fuselage ‘stagnating’ inside the air intakes themselves.
> The phenomenon was called ‘duct rumble’ and at times it could be clearly heard by observers on the ground.
> In order to investigate it, Kelly Johnson rode ‘piggy back’ on one flight with either Milo Burcham or Tony LeVier at the controls, and he correctly diagnosed the cause.
> The problem was corrected with the installation of so called ‘splitter plates’ that removed the boundary layer from within the air intakes and vented it out thru some slots in the upper and lower portion of the intakes themselves.
> This fix was introduced sometimes in the P-80A-1’s production, but some previous aircraft (one of the two XP-80As and the XF-14 prototype, off the top of my head) were fitted with hand-made specimens that were of slightly different shape.



There was a problem with the shape in the nose as discovered during early wind tunnel testing, this was told to me by Tony LeVier. The P-80 was supposed to have an identical nose as the P-38, it was actually decided that inverting the structure would remedy the problem. of course the whole interior of the nose had to be re-designed.

Here's some cutaways from the pilot shop, look you could see the similarities...


----------



## Udet (Jun 20, 2006)

"It appears that the Allied Headquarter were extremely cautious in preventing their new technology from falling into the wrong hands, and initially ordered the RAF's Gloster Meteors to fly missions that were 'away' from the frontlines"

Really... i find myself at a loss for words whenever i read this particular comment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2006)

Udet said:


> "It appears that the Allied Headquarter were extremely cautious in preventing their new technology from falling into the wrong hands, and initially ordered the RAF's Gloster Meteors to fly missions that were 'away' from the frontlines"
> 
> Really... i find myself at a loss for words whenever i read this particular comment.


Why? Even though we know Germany possessed far superior turbine engine aircraft at the time the allied leadership didn't know how their hardware compared with Germany's. It was to their best interest to assume they had something far superior.....


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Why? Even though we know Germany possessed far superior turbine engine aircraft .....



Germany had plenty of problems with the hot sections of their engines.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 20, 2006)

As a generalization: Incorrect. As a specific problem: Correct.
The Jumo-004B (not 004 A or 004D) had serious problems with the
turbine part of the engine due to lack of proper heat resistant alloys.
The BMW-003A had slight problems initially due to vibrations of the compressor stage but this later was fixed (by mid 1944). The -003E and -D did not have problems at all, alike the-003A, these jet engines had an average lifetime of ~200 hrs for the hot turbine part of the engine.
But since the Jumo-004B was the most numerous jet engine produced, I will second Your opinion, Syscom.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2006)

And I "third" it!


----------



## SS427 (Jun 21, 2006)

I would have to go with the F4U Corsair in all of its forms, sure it had teething problems in the beginning, but it went on to more that redeem it self later in the war terrorizing the Japanese and later shooting down North Korean Jets in the Korean War.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Great post Pete.
> 
> Although you argue your points well, I still think that the P80 cannot be considered a WW2 aircraft simply because it was activated right when the war ended and never went on a combat mission. Too bad it was never moved to the PTO where it could have made an interesting "kamikazi" interceptor.



While I disagree that it can not be considered a WW2 aircraft because it did fly during WW2 and reached operational status in WW2, I do agree that it can not be considered for best WW2 aircraft because there really is no way to prove anything about it compared to other aircraft when it comes to combat.

In my opinion I go with the best as this though:

1. C-47
2. Ta-152
3. B-29
4. P-47
5. Fw-190D
6. Bf-109G (only because it is my favorite aicraft )


----------



## pb4y-fixer (Jun 22, 2006)

I read an article in the August 2002 issue of Flight Journal on Corky Meyers (Grumman test pilot). He was the test pilot for the F7F Tigercat. This is from that article:

_"For many years, Capt. Trapnell was the top test pilot in the Navy; his word was law, both in Navy and industry flight-test circles. An example of his influence: he came for a three-hour flight evaluation of the first XF6F-3 Hellcat soon after its first flight and he gave the official Navy go-ahead for mass production on that day! The Hellcat eventually passed all of its contractual demonstrations two and a half years later, after more than 8,000 aircraft had been delivered to fighting squadrons! Also, to his credit, the Hellcat racked up a record 19 to one kill-to-loss ratio-the highest recorded in WW II.

When he came to Grumman to conduct the preliminary evaluation of the Panther in early 1948, I was the only Grumman test pilot who had flown the company's first jet fighter. At every opportunity during his three-day evaluation, I tried to pry his opinions out of him; his only responses were grunts, which I interpreted as, "Cool it, Corky!" At the end of his evaluation, as we walked out to his F7F-4N Tigercat for his return trip to the Naval Air Test Center, I proudly told him that I was the Tigercat project pilot from 1943 to 1946. He immediately burst into a diatribe about the Tigercat's many deficiencies: the over-cooling of the engines; a lack of longitudinal stability; excessively high dihedral rolling effect with rudder input; the high, minimum single-engine control speed, etc. He ended his oration with: "If I had been the chief of the Test Center at that time, I would have had you fired!" Each criticism of the Tigercat was absolutely correct. I was devastated and fervently wished that I hadn't gotten out of bed that day. 

Just as we reached his Tigercat, I blurted, "If you dislike the Tigercat so much, why do you always fly it?" He explained: "The excess power of its two engines is wonderful for aerobatics; the cockpit planning and the forward visibility in the carrier approach is the best in any fighter ever built; the tricycle landing gear allows much faster pilot checkouts; the roll with the power boost rudder is faster than the ailerons; and it has a greater range than any fighter in inventory." Again, he was absolutely right. As he climbed up the ladder to the cockpit, he turned around, grinned and told me, "It's the best damn fighter I've ever flown." I realized he had thrown the entire test-pilot schoolbook at me with his succinct tirade and that we were probably pretty close in our opinions regarding the handling characteristics that define a really good fighter. I went home happy that night."_

From that I would have to give the Tigercat a vote in the race for "Best" fighter of WWII.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 22, 2006)

The F7F would have been chewed up by F4u-4's, P47N's, P51K's, P38L's, Spits.... Fw190's, Ta-152's....blah blah blah.

(in my humble opinion of course)


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 23, 2006)

I would agree with that sys, twin engined fighters generally aren't as manouverable as single engined ones (exception the P-38 ). They are also a bigger target (although probably faster), both types have their advantages and disadvantages but in a dogfight you would generally back a single engined fighter over a twin...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2006)

Besides can one really count it as a WW2 aircraft, it never saw service on any front from what I know.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 23, 2006)

You are correct, the F7F never saw operational service during WWII.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2006)

So to me that puts it in the same boat as the P-80, Ta-183, and P.1011.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 23, 2006)

Yep, and the F8F also.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 23, 2006)

True. But they are so cute.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 23, 2006)

Most manueverable twin was the Ki-83. Check it out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2006)

the mossie could dogfight it with the best of them too you know  

as far as best aircraft, can the P-80 be considdered? no, i don't even think of it as a WWII aircraft really, it was only really declared operational as a token measure if you ask me........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2006)

Agreed as well. It was not fully operational until after the war was over.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 25, 2006)

Agreed as well for a plane to be considered it would have to be fully operational (as well as flown some combat sorties - or transport if not a combat aircraft).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2006)

And that is why the P-80, P-59, Ta-183, P.1011 to name a few are not counted. They did not have an impact, they did not have a say in how things went. Hell 1 never flew at all and 1 flew after the war so for all intensive purposes they are post WW2 aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2006)

but would you class them as WWII era (as in not a WWII aircraft but around the time of the war)?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2006)

I consider them WW2 era aircraft. Absolutly. I even consider them WW2 aircraft actually now that I think about it. I just think they can be voted for the best aircraft of WW2.


----------



## Ken812 (Aug 10, 2006)

Come on the mustang!, where would the 1000s of American and British bomber crews have been without it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2006)

Ken812 said:


> Come on the mustang!, where would the 1000s of American and British bomber crews have been without it?


Waiting around for aircraft and parts being carried through all types of weather by C-47s....


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 10, 2006)

HA! Put that in ur pipe and smoke it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2006)

Ken812 said:


> Come on the mustang!, where would the 1000s of American and British bomber crews have been without it?



Where would the troops be without the C-47 bringing them the supplies to win the war? Where would the overated P-51D Mustang be without the C-47 bringing the spare parts for it because it is broke? Where would the crews that flew the P-51D and the B-17 and the B-24 be without the C-47 bringing supplies and food to the them?

I will say it again. There is more to winning a war than fighters and bombers.


----------



## Bf109_g (Aug 11, 2006)

Hi all.

Anyone voting for the Bf-109G/K-4? I am.

Cheers.

James.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> .....Where would the overated P-51D Mustang be without the C-47 bringing the spare parts for it because it is broke? Where would the crews that flew the P-51D and the B-17 and the B-24 be without the C-47 bringing supplies and food to the them?
> .....



I dont think there were very many sorties in the ETO of the C47's doing that.

The C47's fame in providing the logistics, was supporting the troops.

In the ETO, practically everything was brought over in ships and distributed by ground transport. Occasionally, a long range C54 flew from Halifax to the UK.

In the PTO and CBI, the C47 did perform quite a few logistics missions like that, simply because of the distances involved between bases, and sea transport sometimes was problematic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I dont think there were very many sorties in the ETO of the C47's doing that.
> 
> The C47's fame in providing the logistics, was supporting the troops.
> 
> ...



That was not the point of my post. The point was that there is more to winning a war than fighters and bombers.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 21, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The reason I chose the P38, was its phenominal range.
> 
> It brought the fight to the Luftwaffe and changed the course of the daylight heavy bombing campaign.


I think you might be interested in this post from the Historic-Battles forum by the poster 'robert' ( a poster noted for his knowledge of aviation matters) on the P-38

"The P-38 had three major problems in the ETO:

1. Its Allison engines suffered severely reduced performance at high altitude, making it unsuitable for long-range escort work.

2. Its cockpit heating system was inadequate for the low temperatures encountered over Northern Europe in winter, often leaving pilots with frostbite.

3. With one engine out, the P-38 was a sitting duck for Luftwaffe fighters, meaning that the twin-engined configuration was a handicap, not a help.

"The extremely low temperatures encountered at altitudes above 20,000 ft was the primary cause of engine trouble. At -50 degrees, lubricating oil became sluggish and the full application of full power, particularly in a climb, could cause piston rod bearings to break up with dire consequences. Above 22,000 ft the Allison engines would also begin to throw oil...Turbo-supercharger regulators also gave trouble, eventually traced to moisture from the vapor trail, gathering behind the engine exhaust stubs, getting into the balance lines and freezing.

"[On Febrary 4, 1944] nearly half the P-38s had been forced to abort when once again extreme cold forced a spate of engine failures. Losses were often high in such circumstances for the Luftwaffe were quick to exploit the situation when a P-38 was observed to have a feathered propeller. Because the likelihood of these troubles increased with altitude, Lightnings did not of choice operate above 30,000 ft. In consequence Me 109 top cover, which was usually around the 35,000 ft mark, had been repeatedly bouncing the P-38s on nearly every mission."

- from The Mighty Eighth by Roger Freeman

Even as a reconnaissance aircraft in Europe it was replaced as soon as possible; the F-5 (recce version of the P-38) was restricted to a 300-mile radius after mid-July 1943, and couldn't operate at over 30,000 ft. Col. Homer Sanders, the CO of the 7th PG, who provided reconnaissance for the 8th AF, specifically asked Ira Eaker, the CO of the 8th AF, for Spitfire Mk. XIs, and they began to receive them in November, 1943. As writer Paul Ludwig notes, "From the very beginning, use of the Spitfire PR Mk.XIs dramatically changed the number and character of missions flown by the 7th PG."

In the Pacific, the P-38 was indeed the top-scoring USAAF fighter. But it didn't shoot down more Japanese planes than any other fighter, as many people claim; somewhere, the word USAAF seems to have been deleted from the sentence. In reality, the F6F Hellcat destroyed almost three times as many Japanese aircraft, and the F4U Corsair also outscored the P-38. The totals are 5,156 for the F6F; 2,140 for the F4U; and 1,700 for the P-38. It simply didn't do the job in either the Pacific or the ETO as well as other US fighters. In the ETO it ranked behind the P-51 and P-47; in the Pacific the F6F and F4U.

The P-38 was quite a bit slower than other contemporary US, British, or German fighters. The fastest fighter version of the Lightning was the P-38L, which could do 414 mph. This was at least 20-30 mph slower than the P-51B/D, P-47D, Spitfire Mk. XIV, Tempest Mk. V, Bf 109K, or Fw 190D. Even with the wing flap introduced on the P-38J-25, it couldn't turn with other fighters throughout a full turn. The flap helped in the initial turn, but then the laws of physics took over. The wing loading (weight vs. wing area) of the P-38L was 63.1 (lbs per square foot). The Spitfire Mk. XIV was 35.0. There's no way the P-38 could have stayed with a Spit or Zero through the turn. The combination of being both slower and less agile than almost any other front line fighter of the time is hardly a point in the P-38's favor. To its credit, its ceiling was excellent, at 44,000 ft., a mark bettered only by the Spitfire. It had half the normal range of the P-51 - remember, it had to carry fuel for two engines; normal range for the P-38J/L was 450 miles, against the 950 miles of the P-51D. It's not even close. Its twin-engined configuration was perhaps its worst feature. If one engine was put out, it was a sitting duck for enemy fighters; one quote I have seen recounted how a pilot had seen only one P-38 return from the combat area on one engine during the course of his combat tour. (See American Fighters of World War Two Volume One by Rene Francillon, page 48).

One thing often brought up by P-38 supporters is that the top two US aces, Bong and McGuire, used only P-38s. This is true, and I admit that its good points were perfect for fighting the Japanese fighters. However, it's also true that only three of the top 17 US aces flew P-38s, and besides, you can't judge an aircraft's effectiveness as a whole by one or two pilots who may have rung up large scores in them. Other US-built fighters have compiled similar figures. Both Bong and McGuire's totals were pretty much equalled by Finnish pilots flying Brewster Buffalos and Soviet pilots flying P-39 Airacobras. Hans Wind shot down 39 Soviet aircraft while flying the Buffalo, only one short of Bong's total. That doesn't automatically make those aircraft the best either.

So what do we have? An aircraft whose performance was inferior in all important respects (save ceiling) to contemporary US, British, and German designs; which had only an even kill ratio and the worst loss rate of any US fighter in the ETO; which was pulled out of escort duty in Europe as soon as possible; and which in the theater that it performed best in, the Pacific, was outscored almost three-to-one by another fighter. I do have a tremendous amount of respect for the versatility of the P-38; it could do a lot of different jobs fairly well, many of which it was not originally designed for."


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2006)

Excellent posting Redcoat.

Back to the point. As mentioned much earlier in the thread. If you are looking for the best aircraft in WW2, then you are looking for one aircraft whose results and effectiveness, totally eclipsed every other aircraft in every other airforce in the same role.

In this, the only clear winner is the C47 Dakota.

If you had to go for a second place then I propose the Catalina.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2006)

I agree on teh C47 but can not agree on the Catalina. Yes she was a great aircraft but what did she really accomplish that sets her over other aircraft?


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 22, 2006)

I agree on C47 as 'overall aircraft'

Parm special prizes (a chunk of old Parmigiano with a glass of Brunello)

Special prize for combat aircraft 
Il2-Il 10 series
they won the war for Russia, tout court. And they were such a pain in the axx for the Wermacht that half of the Luftwaffe fighters were busy in trying to stop them.
Technically, it was by far the best attack aircraft of WW II, also easy to produce in great numbers.
OK, they suffered terrible losses but EVERY attack aircraft would, if deployed in a situation of air inferiority (see the Stuka example)

Special prize for innovation
Me 262
Simply one generation ahead, even if it was an 'interim' design. 

Special prize for 'just in time'
Hmm... for me a difficult contest between the Spit in 1940 and the P51 in 1944. But I would say the P51, only because I think that Germans would not have won BoB even without the Spit.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 22, 2006)

"The Battle of Britain could of been won only with the Spitfire but it could not of been won only with the Hurricane" - Alex Henshaw (Spitfire Test Pilot)


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 22, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> "The Battle of Britain could of been won only with the Spitfire but it could not of been won only with the Hurricane" - Alex Henshaw *(Spitfire Test Pilot*)



Ok, but this is like asking the butcher if the beef is good.. 

No, seriously, my point about BoB is independent from aircrafts: I believe that the Germans had not enough power (in numbers and in type of aircrafts) to substantially 'damage beyond repair' the British industry and warpower.


----------



## Glider (Aug 22, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree on teh C47 but can not agree on the Catalina. Yes she was a great aircraft but what did she really accomplish that sets her over other aircraft?



The role I was thinking of was the long range maritime recce / Anti Sub role. It was clearly the best on the allied side serving with UK/USA/Russia and built in Russia with or without US approval. I simply cannot think of any Axis aircraft that comes close.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 22, 2006)

Glider said:


> The role I was thinking of was the long range maritime recce / Anti Sub role. It was clearly the best on the allied side serving with UK/USA/Russia and built in Russia with or without US approval. I simply cannot think of any Axis aircraft that comes close.


The Catalina was an excellent aircraft, and it was the third highest scoring ASW aircraft with 34 credited U-boat kills, but the greatest ASW aircraft without doubt, was the Consolidated B-24 Liberator with 72 credited U-boat kills.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2006)

Glider said:


> The role I was thinking of was the long range maritime recce / Anti Sub role. It was clearly the best on the allied side serving with UK/USA/Russia and built in Russia with or without US approval. I simply cannot think of any Axis aircraft that comes close.



Well I am thinking of best WW2 aircraft and that she was not. Great Aircraft though.


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 31, 2006)

redcoat said:


> The Catalina was an excellent aircraft, and it was the third highest scoring ASW aircraft with 34 credited U-boat kills, but the greatest ASW aircraft without doubt, was the Consolidated B-24 Liberator with 72 credited U-boat kills.




Hi Redcoat, do you know off hand the stats of the Short Sunderland in the ASW role, bearing in mind that I think there were far fewer Sunderlands in service than either the B24 or Catalina ?


----------



## redcoat (Aug 31, 2006)

daishi12 said:


> Hi Redcoat, do you know off hand the stats of the Short Sunderland in the ASW role, bearing in mind that I think there were far fewer Sunderlands in service than either the B24 or Catalina ?


The Short Sunderland is credited with 27 U-Boat kills

U-Boat.net has a list of major ASW aircraft types and their war record against U-Boats. 
uboat.net - Fighting the U-boats - Aircraft
8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2006)

Ive allways liked that website, especially the part with the history of every U-Boot.


----------



## Soren (Sep 5, 2006)

Yes, that is indeed a great website, and I agree with Adler the most interesting part is the history provided for each boat.


----------



## Crumpp (Sep 5, 2006)

> No, seriously, my point about BoB is independent from aircrafts: I believe that the Germans had not enough power (in numbers and in type of aircrafts) to substantially 'damage beyond repair' the British industry and warpower.



Certainly.



> Luftwaffe doctrine, so successful in establishing a powerful synergy between air and land operations, _was deeply flawed in its understanding of the fundamentals of airpower._ The causes were various, but *the result was inadequate provision for the industrial investment and resources necessary to sustain operations in the face of high wastage rates that war would bring.* By contrast, the Royal Air Force (RAF) was well placed to defend Great Britain, notwithstanding its perceived doctrinal emphasis on strategic bombing. As Richard Overy recently pointed out, the contest the country faced after Dunkirk had been anticipated and prepared for in the 1930s. [1] *The Air Ministry, planning the rapid expansion of the front line, had clearly understood the lessons of the First World War, in particular, the high cost--in human and materiel terms--of sustaining air operations.*



Even though the Germans were winning the war of attrition, at best it would have been a Pyrrhic victory.

It had nothing to do with the performance of any aircraft. All were competative.

Logistics and the Battle of Britain Air Force Journal of Logistics - Find Articles

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 6, 2006)

That I can somewhat agree with.


----------



## dinos7 (Sep 16, 2006)

i officially have posted after 6 months of non usage


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 17, 2006)

have a friggin' biscuit..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2006)

Damn Lanc that cracked me up for some reason!


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 17, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> have a friggin' biscuit..........


 Sure he would rather have a cookie...


----------



## dinos7 (Sep 20, 2006)

was the "have a friggen biscuit" fired towards me?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2006)

Yeap sure was...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2006)

And you guys thought my siggy was way too big at first!


----------



## dinos7 (Sep 21, 2006)

(laughs at self)


----------



## Macwan (Sep 22, 2006)

Check this gents :

Marcel Bloch MB.157






Year deployed - 1942 (built in 1940)
Wing span, m - 10.70
Lenght, m - 9.70
Height, m - 3.20
Wings area, m2 - 19.40 
Weight, kg 
- empty aircraft - 2390
- normal take-off - 3250
Engine - 1 PE Gnome-Rhone 14R
Power, hp - 1 У 1590
Maximum speed, km/h - 710
Cruising speed, km/h - 400
Range, km - 1095
Rate of climb, m/min 
Service ceiling, m - 11000
Crew - 1
Armament: 2 20 mm cannons or 4 7,5-mm machine-guns 


710 Km/h in 1940...
It never was built more than 1 due to France fall, but it would have certainly be the best fighter of its generation. Looks like Razorback... no ?

Regards,

Macwan.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 23, 2006)

without the service history of the greats then it still remains a "could have", interesting all the same though.........


----------



## red admiral (Sep 23, 2006)

The 710km/h speed of the MB.157 is disputed. If attained at all, it would be without armament, armour and at extreme altitude. A speed of 620km/h seems far more likely.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2006)

Besides the Brits and the Germans had aircraft going faster than that back in 1939. True as Red Admiral put out they were without weapons and so forth as that Bloch, but I just dont see the Bloch holding up against the 109, 190 or Spitfire.


----------



## Macwan (Sep 24, 2006)

Yes, but we can't find any possible specificity of that plane by comparing with Spits and 109's. We must compare it to its previous versions, MB152/155, which were good planes but with armament problems (freezing Hispano-suiza guns !) and such a poor engine !
But that new Gnome-Rhone 14R is really much more powerful and uses a revolutionnary compressor that allows high speed at high altitude. Maybe we can find suchs innovations in Bf-109F and Spit Mk.Vb but some months later, and in facts that's not a real surpise...

Finally when we look at french air industry at that time, we find that innovations and new models were quite distant in time from those of other countries (Germany, UK), and much more for engine industry. 
It's considered in France that the best "What if" (France hadn't lost) plane is Arsenal VG.33, but it's not sure at all, due to its heavy wooden fabrication and former Hispano engine and heavy and problematic hispano guns. The Dewoitine family is evocated too, but just look at the D.520, even if it's a great fighter in 1940, nothing can prove that its small size can support war innovatiopns and heavier gears...
...at least that MB157 is all the more surprising that it is the only fighter project with new Gnome-Rhone engine, and the plane's conception allows modifications easily. Quite surely, it can be compared to the Fw-190 conception, compact fighters with powerful engine and certainly heavy weapons.
But it was tested in 1942, without guns and witout 2 years of war innovations it was able to support and without its builder final improvements, so that's just a great "what if" .

A 6 months technology advance, for an army composed by 2 technology years late planes, and for a lost war...

Cheers,

Macwan.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2006)

Yes but since there is no way to compare it to anything and aircraft just 6 months later were definatly 100% better aircraft the Bloch can not qualify as the Best WWII Aircraft.


----------



## Macwan (Sep 25, 2006)

hey hey ! I said the best of its generation ! I wouldn't do our "what if" story last until we consider a Bloch with late war innovations ! -with jet engine that time,  . 
The only things we're sure is that due to fall of France we won't never know what this plane could have become and do during years of war and innnovations, and that M.Bloch was a very good plane conceptor (check his creations Gents  )...

But considering "the best fighter of WWII", we can forget all that was build before 1944...
In that case I vote for Spitfire Mk.XIV (also a question of taste, I confess 8) ).
And for the "best WWII plane", I'd say B-17.

Cheers,

Macwan.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 25, 2006)

what's your basis for the B-17 argument?


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 25, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> what's your basis for the B-17 argument?




Lanc.....aren't you going to cut him some slack (let him post 40-50 posts) before telling him the Lancaster is the best.  


Just kidding man.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 25, 2006)

i never mentioned the lanc, you're the one bringing her up....

but now you have...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2006)

Here we go again...

With over 12,000 built, 60 years of service, operated by Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, China, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Laos, Libya, LOT Polish Airlines, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauretania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, North Vietnam, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papa New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rhodesia, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, South Korea, South Vietnam, Somalia, Soviet Union, Sri Lanka, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, Uruguay, United Kingdom, United States (Army Air Corps, Army Air Force, Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy), Venezuela, Vietnam, Yeman, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, and with close to 400 of them still flying, this is a mute argument....

Overall best WW2 aircraft...


----------



## mkloby (Sep 26, 2006)

Hey Flyboy I heard that Argentina used them as gunships like the C-130 gunships... albeit a little older tech. Definitely a most excellent bird.

However, everybody knows the Bf 109 was the best bird of WW2 - it ushered in a new era of aircraft and raised the bar to unparalleled heights! Speaking of which, I bought a 1990 Mustang GT off of a guy distantly related to Willy Messerschmitt, not that this knowledge will affect anyone's life.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 26, 2006)

> ushered in a new era of aircraft



i will agree that it did perhaps raise the bar a bit but the first "modern" fighter of the Era was the I-16, first monoplane with an all metal construction, enclosed cockpit and retractable landing gear.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2006)

Bf-109, a great aircraft, ONE of the best, operated by Spain (HA-1112) into the 60s.

Overall performance, longevity durability and versatility, nothing beats a Gooney!!!!


----------



## davparlr (Sep 26, 2006)

mkloby said:


> However, everybody knows the Bf 109 was the best bird of WW2 - it ushered in a new era of aircraft and raised the bar to unparalleled heights!



???? And the Spitfire did what???

Long live the C-47. R4D to the Navy types.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 26, 2006)

davparlr said:


> ???? And the Spitfire did what???
> 
> Long live the C-47. R4D to the Navy types.



The spit was not operational until 1938 while the Bf 109B entered service in April '37 - a big gap there.

And the I-16 was a step forward (retractable gear, yes, but God cranking those handles is ridiculous!) - although not a very capable fighter with it's stubby fuselage and poor handling combined with a big and weak radial - and the extremely flawed design revealed itself in the fact that it could not be successfully upgraded... definitely not in the same class as the 109.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2006)

davparlr said:


> ???? And the Spitfire did what???
> 
> Long live the C-47. R4D to the Navy types.



Here, here!!!


----------



## davparlr (Sep 26, 2006)

mkloby said:


> The spit was not operational until 1938 while the Bf 109B entered service in April '37 - a big gap there.



a year was a big gap in WWII but not in mid 30s. Development was very close to parallel and you can bet the 109 had no impact on the design of the spitfire, a plane that was its equal when they met.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 27, 2006)

davparlr said:


> a year was a big gap in WWII but not in mid 30s. Development was very close to parallel and you can bet the 109 had no impact on the design of the spitfire, a plane that was its equal when they met.



I agree. The developments did run mostly concurrently, the 109 just beat the spit to the punch! Hell, it even beat the Hurricane to operational status.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2006)

Im with FBJ on this. The best aircraft has to be the C-47.

Oh and mkloby the C-47 was used like the AC-130 in the United States as well in Vietnam. We called it "Puff the Magic Dragon".


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 28, 2006)

The first time I had ever heard of the "puff" version of the C47 was when I watched "The Green Berets".


----------



## evangilder (Sep 29, 2006)

I've said it before, but I think the DC-3/C-47 is the greatest plane ever built. From it's maiden flight as the DC-1 in 1933, until today, the DC-3/C-47 is still in use hauling people and cargo in many places throughout the world.

95% of commercial flights in the US were flown in DC-3s by the end of 1938. By 1939, 90% of commercial traffic _worldwide_ was flown in DC-3s. 

After the war, the DC-3 was the start of the fledgling airline industries as we know them today. I have yet to meet a pilot that flew one that had anything bad to said about the old Gooney bird.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 29, 2006)

Here are some pictures of a USAF AC-47 Spooky (Puff The Magic Dragon)


----------



## evangilder (Sep 30, 2006)

The lowest ranking member of the USAF to be awarded the Medal of Honor was a crewman on an AC-47. John Levitow was part of the crew manning the guns as another crewmember was dropping flares out of the back door. The were hit as the other crewmember was dropping the flare and it ended up dropping inside the aircraft. Obviously, a white phosphorous flare inside and aircraft, lit, is a bad thing! It was made even worse with live ammo nearby. They all struggled to get it out of the airplane. Although wounded himself in the legs and lower body, Levitow threw himself onto the flare, hugged it to his chest, and crawled to the door to fling it out. 

John Levitow was an airman first class (A1C), or an E-3. He passed away a few years ago.

Here are some shots of the aircraft upon it's return, and a tribute to John Levitow. I do not remember where I got these pictures, source is unknown.


----------



## k9kiwi (Sep 30, 2006)

> On a more positive note, the Germans would have been credited with wiping out tooth decay and gingivitis.



Now that right there is damn funny.

I vote for the Boomerang.

Not the plane, the Aussi Aboriginy Boomerang, if made of steel and thrown at low level attacking planes it probably would have bought down more than any bullets.

And it was flying / killing centuries before a P-51, or FW-190.

If you ever want to try hitting a red kangaroo at full speed with a rifle, it will just p!ss you off and waste ammo.

The little Abbo tracker beside you pees his pants laughing, pulls his stick out and snots the damn thing at 120 metres (paced out). A wee tad embarassing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2006)

i must admit i do find the aboriginies quite interesting, i myself play a bit of Digeridoo and the boomerang truely is a wonderful weapon but only in skilled hands, westerners don't have a chance with one............


----------



## k9kiwi (Sep 30, 2006)

Dunno bout that.

I have clobbered myself some real beuts trying to catch the mongrel.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 1, 2006)

every tried a blow on a didgey?


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 1, 2006)

You dirt wee man you, I am married.


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 9, 2006)

Hahaha, i love non-american countries and their wit


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 10, 2006)

only because we know how decent comedy looking at most of your sitcoms it's amazing you guys know what comedy, someone walks in in an absurd outfit which they write a stupid story line around and out comes the rediculously canned laughter, Fawlty Towers, The two ronnies, porridge, Open all hours now that's comedy.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2006)

What the hell are you talking about Lanc. You have not taste what so ever at all if you think that Friends, King of Queens, and stuff like that is not funny!

There are some great comedy shows that come out of the States. Just because they come from the other side of the pond does not make them terrible.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 10, 2006)

friends i don't mind so much and American Dad and Family Guy are great, but the last two are also cartoons  most of the sitcoms they show over here aren't funny in the least, give me The Two Ronnies anyday, some of the funniest shows ever..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2006)

Lanc they are not funny because you do not understand the Humor just like most Americans dont understand British Humor. 

British Humor is very dry, US humor is not. It is more straight to the point.

Just because you do not understand something does not make it bad. That is the kind of attitude I expect from the other side of the pond. No offense intended to my fellow friends from the other side of the pond.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 10, 2006)

the fact i may not understand the humour doesn't change the fact they're not funny to me, yeah obviously the americans find funny outfits and canned laughter funny but it just doesn't do it for me..........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 10, 2006)

I always thought that the best comedy show ever was "All In The Family"


----------



## mkloby (Oct 10, 2006)

My favorite show growing up was Married with children. Admittedly one of the worst shows ever - but i still love it!

All in the family was good too - but it bothered me with the political undertones making the traditional conservative, Archie, seem like a raging idiot compared to his daughter and her husband the new age smarter and wiser progressives.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 11, 2006)

One of my all time favourites was Get Smart, corny as hell but always worth a laugh.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2006)

My alltime favorite is Friends and then after that Wings.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 11, 2006)

There are a lot more American sitcoms than British ones, so obviously it would seem that there are more bad ones, but the ratio is about the same. I do prefer British sitcoms though, Friends is hilarious and King of Queens is ok but theyre the only 2 ill really make a point of watching. My personal favourites are Dads Army, 'Allo 'Allo and I'm Alan Partridge.


----------



## Dazed (Oct 14, 2006)

Which plane had the most impact on the course of the war? That's the relevant comparison.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 14, 2006)

We have already discussed this at length (and multiple times) and have decided that the C-47 was the best aircraft of WW2. Reasons can be seen further back in this thread.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My alltime favorite is Friends and then after that Wings.


those 2 shows give me the shivers now after saying that most Bob Newharts stuff was good as was All in the Family and Basil Fawlty has no equal best new show is My Name is Earl


----------



## Propwash (Oct 15, 2006)

I vote for the B-17!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2006)

And for what reasons? Theres nothign wrong with that choice and it is a good choice, but tell everyone why.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 15, 2006)

I think the Hurricane was one of the most important A/C of the war. Without these, which were easier to crank out in masses than spits, the brits may not have been able to keep fighting off the Germans after france fell. Maybe not a sexy plane, but definitely a workhorse... and giving her her due.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I think the Hurricane was one of the most important A/C of the war. Without these, which were easier to crank out in masses than spits, the brits may not have been able to keep fighting off the Germans after france fell. Maybe not a sexy plane, but definitely a workhorse... and giving her her due.



Important for a certein time of the airwar. 

But far outclassed by the Spitfire and Mustang (and a slew of others) as the ar progressed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 16, 2006)

but unlike many other types she did go on to prove very useful in a number of other roles, and whilst i agree she is not the best aircraft of WWII she does deserve a mention as an all time great.......


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 16, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> but unlike many other types she did go on to prove very useful in a number of other roles, and whilst i agree she is not the best aircraft of WWII she does deserve a mention as an all time great.......



In a top 100 list, yes.

In a top 25 list, no.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2006)

Id throw her into a Top 50 list.


----------



## wolfpath (Oct 18, 2006)

Hello, my father was the "engine and guns" man of Luigi Gorrini, one of the top aces of italian Regia Aeronautica, serving in the 85 squadriglia of 3 stormo. He always told me that his pilot told him that the english and amirican planes were not so good good, the SPitfire itself...good to dive shoot and fly away. They had less handling and manouvrability than the italian planes (Fiat Cr 42 "the best of all biplanes", the Macchi Mc 200, the Macchi 202, and the Macchi 205) and that the pilots were not able to make aerobatics. Most of italians pilots, in fact, were much more experienced than the english and the americans, because they had fought in the Spanish civil war. You can read everywhere that "the italian planes were undergunned", but I had the canche to talk with generale Giulio Cesare Giuntella that shot down two english planes over the desert and He told me that the italian breda 12,7 impressed Adolf Galland in Belgium when they showed him that the bullets from that gun could hole steel and fire a tank of fire put behind, while the weak bullets from english planes were stopped even by the parachute, when they had the chance to fight spitfires and hurricanes them over the Channel. The Macchi 205 veltro was better than the spitfires (i read a very interesting text on this site confirming that) but the P 51 pilots too feared the 205 at least at low heights. I think it was the best of fighter plane with propeller, at least in Europe. But the director of the italian museum ot air force (Museo storico dell'Aeronautica militare di Vigna di Valle), very well informed, told me that the Germans tested the italian fighter planes (they know that they were better than theirs) of the "5" series, Macchi 205, Reggiane 2005 and Fiat 55. They wanted to chose a single type plane to produce TO REPLACE Me 109 and Focke Wulf 190. And they chose the Fiat 55: the superb plane was, for them, THE BEST FIGHTER. And they were not short of excellent planes. 
English historians tell that the SPitfire was the best defensive fighter, and the americans that the Mustang was the best offensive. The history is written by the winners and the winner people likt to believe to their lies.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2006)

Good information wolfpath, but it's not a matter of "lies from the winners." You stated that "the english and amirican planes were not so good good, the SPitfire itself...good to dive shoot and fly away." Well that's what you call tactics and those dive, shoot and fly away eventually prevailed along with the numerical superiority that no axis power was able to achieve. The Italians built great planes, but their numbers and tactics did them in, and that my friend is the truth....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 19, 2006)

ah you also have to remember EVERYTHING from the past is propaganda, even facts are because you use facts to support your arguments, so whilst some of it is perhaps fact, of course they would have told your father that his enemy was inferior because that's what they told their pilots, no pilot goes into a fight thinking he will loose, even your statement about the winners believing their lies is propaganda, and remember the italians ended up on the winning side.........


----------



## plan_D (Oct 28, 2006)

Don't give him the idea that his country was on the winning side in the end. Italy got slaughtered and embarassed in that war. The only times Britain, then the Allies met real resistance in any theatre Italy was in...was when the Germans were there. 

Makes me laugh really that he attacks the Mustang ... I don't see any Italian planes escorting their bombers from Rome to Alexandria. Or the equal distance of Britain to Berlin .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2006)

pD's got a point there.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 29, 2006)

pD's got half a point there... Italy cannot be counted on the winning side, actually it can be said it managed to lose the war twice.

But it's not laughable the statement that the series 5 was a good match for Spits and Mustangs.

We already have discussed and compared the performances of this machines, and at equal development (= mid 43 versions) no other fighter can be claimed 
superior.
And the allied planes had always tough times in facing them, even in 1944 (look at the score of RSI aviation) 

Besides, except the Mustang no single engine fighter can be vaunted for long range escort, and the tactical use of the '5' did not call for external fuel tanks.

Also true the fact that the Germans were highly impressed by the series 5 and planned the production of the G55.

Then we can say that the reports from Italian airmen are biased like the reports of airmen of any other Country, but also it is not impossible that Galland was 'impressed' by the Breda 12,7: it all depends WHEN the demo took place.
Being in Belgium it is likely that it was the time od BoB (the only time when Italian planes were deployed in Belgium), and so the comparison was with the British 7,7 and the current armament of the German planes (7,9 and slow firing 20mm MG FF)
No wonder that a good 12,7 with a very good cartdrige (like the Breda was) could be considered very effective.
Six months later every other plane had improved the armament far beyond the 2x12,7 while Italians had to wait 1943 and the Macchi 205 to be back on track.


----------



## Pegasus (Nov 6, 2006)

I would choose the Horten 229. Not great maneuverability but shredding weaponry and blinding speed and range.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2006)

While I think the Ho-229 would have been a great aircraft we can not for certain place it into the catagory of the best of WW2. It only flew on test flights and never saw combat. Therefore we will never see how it handled against other aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 7, 2006)

and whilst the design does offer some advantages you can't believe all the stats for an aircraft untried in combat, which is what adler's saying, there's always problems that you can't find until you're flying combat sorties, so this belongs in the what ifs..........


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 7, 2006)

I agree with Adler and Lanc: I love the 229, is full of charme and was probably the most innovative approach, but was only a prototype.
Besides, the concept proved valid with the B-2 but only after fly-by-wire was available.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2006)

I think the 229 would have been allright without the fly by wire technology only because of its small size. Still though it is a what if only.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2006)

Rolls back to the gooney bird!


----------



## rochie (Nov 7, 2006)

saw a program on history channel yesterday called battleground i think ?
it was supposed to be about d-day in normandy but the producers must have been the biggest P-51 fans because all they banged on about was how the invasion couldn,t have happened without the mustang, it seems it was the only fighter good enough to match luftwaffe.
then it was off shooting up every thing on the ground,destroying railstock and you would think it was the only aircraft in the allied inventory they even tried to pass off footage of a low flying spitfire as a P-51 no mention was made of P-47's, spitfires, typhoons or P-38's etc, i know the P-51 was a good aircraft but come on other planes made a contribution to the air war in europe !
sorry to rant but just annoyed me what do you all think did the P-51 deserve its reputation as the ultimate piston engine fighter ?
i'm not sure it does other planes were better in certain roles


----------



## twoeagles (Nov 7, 2006)

Keep in mind the P-51 has had 60 years of glowing press, is highly
recognizable (even my wife knows a 'Stang), and not only flew over
Berlin, but over Tokyo, too. It flew on into the Korean war. No F4U Corsair
escorted 8th Air Force bombers, for instance, but it is highly recognizable
yet comparatively rare in the public's eye. Getting an objective documentary
isn't easy because they are written and produced by real people who also
have their own prejudices, and also large knowledge gaps.

My son is at Pensacola starting flight school and has loved airplanes his
whole life (he had no choice). Ask him about the P-51 and he will gush.
Ask him about the Hawker Tempest and he will return a blank stare. Every
airshow we attend has a P-51, but neither of us has seen a real Tempest.
So familiriarity plays a role, especially on TV aimed at a mass audience.

Look at it this way: if you could hands down with no argument nail down
the best aircraft in every type, we wouldn't be having any fun here talking
about it.


----------



## rochie (Nov 7, 2006)

i agree with everything you say and i think the P-51 was an amazing aircraft and great at it's job but it didn't win ww2 on its own which this show seemed to suggest that's what got me worked up


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Nov 7, 2006)

To put it all simply...The mustang is overated, a handful of hits in the right spot, and she's out of the fight. If you're over enemy territory, then you are sol, because your engine probably wont make it all the way home.

I think that the -4 corsair, or an M model thunderbolt would give her a run for her money, but it all depends on the pilot and his tactics. That goes for any plane. A guy in a b model p-40 could slaughter a pilot in a p51 H if he doesn't know how to handle his bird. Try to get in a turning fight with a 51, and youre in a thunderbolt, you will LOSE badly. The Jug Pilot would use his supereior firepower in a head on run, or use a diving attack. I believe that when the performance between aircraft are very close, then It comes down to the pilots themselves.


----------



## rochie (Nov 7, 2006)

you might have a point there jug still it deserves some credit though, nice pic of a P-47 by the way


----------



## Erich (Nov 7, 2006)

sorry Jug but the pilots of the top scoring unit in the ETO, the 354th fg disagree. they hated the Jug


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2006)

I wuold still rather have a Jug. I like its ruggedness...

...how having said that the best aircraft of WW2 was the C-47!


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2006)

Jug - a couple of hits in the right place will put anything out of commission! Get hit in the radiator - and you got trouble on any liquid cooled A/C.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2006)

hit a couple of bullets through the side of a P-47 will kill the pilot and down the whole aircraft, what's your point? yes liquid cooled engines are more easily damaged, but a couple of shots? really? the P-47 and no air cooled is invincible, many of them were lost so obviously they aren't, and stories of planes returning on a handful of cyclinders aren't commonplace they happened yes, but let's face it and damaged engine is gonna cause you problems and in a heavy single engined fighter you're just as likely to go down flying on a couple of cyclinders...........


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hit a couple of bullets through the side of a P-47 will kill the pilot and down the whole aircraft, what's your point? yes liquid cooled engines are more easily damaged, but a couple of shots? really? the P-47 and no air cooled is invincible, many of them were lost so obviously they aren't, and stories of planes returning on a handful of cyclinders aren't commonplace they happened yes, but let's face it and damaged engine is gonna cause you problems and in a heavy single engined fighter you're just as likely to go down flying on a couple of cyclinders...........



That's my poinit lanc! Taking rounds in the right place will down anything - not soley P-51s...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 8, 2006)

BUT, the P-51D WAS more susceptible to groundfire than the P-47D... Why???

The engine...

All this back and forth sh!t is drivin me crazy... Any plane can be shot down by the lucky magic penetrator, but the Mustang was easier to shoot down...


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> BUT, the P-51D WAS more susceptible to groundfire than the P-47D... Why???
> 
> The engine...
> 
> All this back and forth sh!t is drivin me crazy... Any plane can be shot down by the lucky magic penetrator, but the Mustang was easier to shoot down...



Agreed Les!
Have a thread called best WWII A/C and that's all you're going to get... everyone's opinion is prejudiced and nobody here has flown these damn things - if somoene has they certainly haven't flown all of them!... an aircraft's true essence cannot be boiled down to stats and numbers - any pilot will tell you that...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

And that I agree with.

The only reason I go with the C-47 is for reasons stated, without it the ground guys would not have gotten supplies to win the war.


----------



## twoeagles (Nov 9, 2006)

Try reverse logic. The lack of what aircraft, had it not existed, would
have had the most impact on the execution of the war...Since the war in
Europe, at least, ultimately had to be won on the ground, then maybe
the C-47/Dakota isn't a bad candidate. Name all the other dedicated
cargo haulers (okay C-46; and the B-29 supplied Southeast Asia/China)...
So, could the ground war in Europe have been won without the C-47 for
cargo and troop air drops?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 9, 2006)

well if there was no C-47 there would just be annother similar transport, but that's true of most aircraft, but we'll never know............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

And since the C-47 existed, the C-47 gets my vote.


----------



## [DH]Chris89 (Dec 7, 2006)

Well if it Has to be British i would have to say the Wonder Full Mosqutio, Quick, Light weight, and had one hell off a punch in the nose.

For German it would Defenitly would have to be the Foker Wolf 190 A-8 fast and a brillent Aircraft agasint B-17s and P-51D's

And Sorry i can't think of any american aircraft


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2006)

C-47 my friend. Supplied the troops on the ground to win the war.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 8, 2006)

[DH]Chris89;206307 said:


> Well if it Has to be British i would have to say the Wonder Full Mosqutio, Quick, Light weight, and had one hell off a punch in the nose.
> 
> For German it would Defenitly would have to be the Foker Wolf 190 A-8 fast and a brillent Aircraft agasint B-17s and P-51D's
> 
> And Sorry i can't think of any american aircraft


You just said 2 - P51 and B17...



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> C-47 my friend. Supplied the troops on the ground to win the war.



Agreed (and you know that most people here will agree too).


----------



## mkloby (Dec 8, 2006)

[DH]Chris89;206307 said:


> And Sorry i can't think of any american aircraft



Because Americans produced 0 notable aircraft???


----------



## saltlakespitfire (Dec 9, 2006)

Well on the logistical side , C-47 was the definete winner. None of the other countries fighting the war produced such a versatile aircraft.

But on the combat side the spit would be the best for me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 9, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Because Americans produced 0 notable aircraft???



got it in one my friend........


----------



## davparlr (Dec 9, 2006)

[DH]Chris89;206307 said:


> For German it would Defenitly would have to be the Foker Wolf 190 A-8 fast and a brillent Aircraft agasint B-17s and P-51D's



The Fw-190A-8 has a top speed of 405 mph at 18000 ft. The P-51D has a speed of about 416 mph at 18000 ft with a top speed of 442 mph at 26000 ft. I suspect the P-51 is faster at all altitudes thant he Fw-190A-8. Compared to the P-51D, the Fw-190A-8 is not a particularly fast airplane. And, while the Fw-190 was indeed a brilliant aircraft design, so was the P-51.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 10, 2006)

We could keep going on about this stuff since 'best WWII a/c' is simply too vague. I would believe the best WWII a/c is the one that inspired the most designs (i.e. the Zeke inspired the reason for the Hellcat.. that may be just one example, though I'm not implying that the Zeke was the best WWII a/c). The C-47 definietly was great, but we should first divide it all, like those wise guys on the Aces High forums lol.

1) best fighter (overall)
-best fighter (overall combat)
-best fighter (base/fleet defence)
-best fighter (jabo)
-best fighter etc...

2) best bomber (overall)
-best bomber (pure destruction)
-best bomber (versatility)
-best bomber, etc...

The list goes on. 

Brainfart- The F4U-4 completely outmatches the P-51D, so don't get any attempts, Spamcan lovers (just in case you're thinking it, the P-51H didn't enter combat in WWII, so don't use that old 'P-51H is better than the 4-Hog arguemant).


----------



## exec228 (Dec 10, 2006)

i'd vote for c-47/dakota/li-2/l2d.
it's not quite ww2 aircraft (not only), but it was a workhorse for many countries.

and i aggree with Sgt. Pappy that the topic has no criteria to discuss.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> got it in one my friend........



Yeah because the allies were using British made Spitfires to escort the bombers deep into Germany and back, day in and day out....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

dude lighten up


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

Im kidding lanc, unbunch your panties okay...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

how can you make me out to be the one getting annoyed, i made a joke you came heavy on me


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

I think each others humor goes over each others heads...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

me too.........


----------



## davparlr (Dec 10, 2006)

This is a repeat but the C-47/DC-3/R4D is one of the most significant aircraft of the first 100 years of flight, not to mention WWII. That's my vote.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

And mine as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2006)

Ditto!


----------



## YakFlyer (Jan 18, 2007)

Well I'm just gonna say in one big bias, selfish ignorant breathe: Spitfire Mustang.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2007)

I think the Spitfire is an excellent choice. Not my choice but an excellent choice. The Mustang however I disagree on. It is a great aircraft but not the best of WW2.


----------



## joebong (Jan 19, 2007)

grumman-cats said:


> talk about the bias opinion. Just face it guys, if it was built by grumman it was great. end of discussion, no need to debate anymore. There's just nothing better than that.



When look at all time best, I don't feel hottest is bestest, atthe only air show i've attended, a bear flew wow it chomped sky like a quisenart. Still it was a late to show, a Ta 152 lived up at 40,000' 467mph withering weapons array, nimble as a cat,(Thanks to exotic wing design.)but not much impact on events. someone said "C47" welll, mighty important machine, Hurrc's a real soldier ask any B of B pilot. I like Bf109's like they said about "the Who" They played longer, harder and more than the others. Still if you've never seen an F8F do it's thing, man you ain't seen nothing. oh and there's the navy ace maker the hellcat, I could go on on.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 19, 2007)

X


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2007)

Chingachgook said:


> C-46
> 
> just to razz the C47 crowd.
> 
> ...


But it was harder to operate and a mechanical nightmare when compared to a C-47. I know guys who worked on them in Alaska as late as the late 90s. They hated them.


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 19, 2007)

if i have to choose one,my vote goes for the Spit.if i have to consider the whole war.
i see the topics of best /night/day fighters,bombers,bomber killers,tankbusters,but where are the recon or transport ac? i stick to others,best transport ac been deffo the C-47.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2007)

I look at what the made (for me that is) the most impact on the war and that would be the C-47. Without it the ground troops would not recieve supplies, parts and food.

C-47 all the way. There is more to a war than slinging bullets.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

it does make for more interesting debate if you stop all but telling the noobies they're wrong though


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2007)

I dont tell them they are wrong, Lanc. I just share my opinion on the matter.

Maybe I should share my opinion more on yours too...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2007)

don't you do plenty enough of that anyway?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2007)

Nope I dont even try....yet!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

hit me


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2007)

No that would be child abuse.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No that would be child abuse.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

it's beginning to look like one big ack to cover up how much you like me really


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2007)

I have allways told you that I never had anything against you, I just enjoy joking around with you.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)

yeah i know, i quite enjoy our joking too............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

Dont make it sexual. I dont like men (boys in your case) or sheep!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)

how was i making it sexual! i enjoy our banter!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

I was just telling you not to try and go there.

Okay now, get back on topic...

Next person explain why they think that said aircraft is the best:


----------



## YakFlyer (Jan 30, 2007)

Yep that is very straight forward, the 190 was superior in all areas to all marks of spit up to and including the V, so how does one possibly compare the Hurricane to the 190?
The Hurricane was the one in numbers during 1940, it saved the day, and the free world.


----------



## Freemind757 (Jan 30, 2007)

The fact is simple. The spitfire looked good. It was every bit as dashing as the young men who flew it, and in flight it was as graceful as any bird.
You had Mr. Churchill on the wireless (radio for those of you with an american disposition  ) explaining we'd never surrender, and above the sound of the great merlin engine, and you couldn't help thinking; yes, we can win this thing.
Possibly, just possibly, the spitfire is the greatest machine ever made.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2007)

Freemind757 said:


> Possibly, just possibly, the spitfire is the greatest machine ever made.


The raw material that went into Spitfires was probably delivered by a C-47...

Folks, you're too hung up on fighters - there's a lot more to flying than air combat. The multi-role ability, ease of maintenance, longevity and versatility of the C-47 places it as not only the overall best aircraft of WW2, but probably the best aircraft ever built, PERIOD!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2007)

> The raw material that went into Spitfires was probably delivered by a C-47...



C'mon now, Joe, that's far-fetched. You know the material used to build the Spitfire would have been delivered by train, truck and ship. Unless Britain used C-47s to move metal from the mills to workshops, or the U.S used C-47s to deliver war material across the Atlantic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> C'mon now, Joe, that's far-fetched. You know the material used to build the Spitfire would have been delivered by train, truck and ship. Unless Britain used C-47s to move metal from the mills to workshops, or the U.S used C-47s to deliver war material across the Atlantic.


You know I'm making a point...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2007)

I know you are...but make a better one and say the spares were delivered by the C-47... especially in Burma. *sneaks off*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I know you are...but make a better one and say the spares were delivered by the C-47... especially in Burma. *sneaks off*


There ya go - that's what I mean!!!!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2007)

And all the food, ammo, hats, condoms, toothpicks, lighters, pubic hair, cups, boot laces, mail, hay, excrement... basically everything.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> And all the food, ammo, hats, *condoms*, toothpicks, lighters, pubic hair, cups, boot laces, mail, hay, excrement... basically everything.


You forgot something...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2007)

Prostitutes?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Prostitutes?



hehehe.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2007)

Well, I left that out because in Europe when we liberated France it was one less war material the C-47 needed to deliver. The French population provided the Allied troops with plenty of c-u-m buckets...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 30, 2007)

Hell man, those chicks were only looking for a way off that God-forsaken continent... Marrying or spurting out an American GI's kid was a one way ticket out....

Or so they thought...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 30, 2007)

I heard there was an apparent problem with abuse toward the French women from the GIs. When the American High Command investigated this possible scar on Allied reputation; they discovered that it was simply because French women telling the GIs to "F*ck them" in German, or kept saying, during sexual intercourse, "Du ist die vater" ...which led to a lot of anger among the GIs, naturally. 
It was soon solved though when the Allies released a pamphlet explaining that these "Germans" weren't simply wearing new uniforms, but they were in fact the Americans.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 30, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The raw material that went into Spitfires was probably delivered by a C-47...
> 
> Folks, you're too hung up on fighters - there's a lot more to flying than air combat. The multi-role ability, ease of maintenance, longevity and versatility of the C-47 places it as not only the overall best aircraft of WW2, but probably the best aircraft ever built, PERIOD!



It's Top Gun syndrome man... think I'm sexy in my C-12???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2007)

mkloby said:


> It's Top Gun syndrome man... think I'm sexy in my C-12???


I bet you could shoot an ILS in a lot more comfort than if you're in an F-18!!!


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I bet you could shoot an ILS in a lot more comfort than if you're in an F-18!!!



That's right! And don't underestimate the ability to poop in flight.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

ILS


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ILS


Instrument Landing System...

ILS Basics

There's no greater feeling breaking out of the clouds and having a lighted runway right in front of you...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

ah, like the British and particularly the lanc had a lot of


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks, you're too hung up on fighters - there's a lot more to flying than air combat. The multi-role ability, ease of maintenance, longevity and versatility of the C-47 places it as not only the overall best aircraft of WW2, but probably the best aircraft ever built, PERIOD!



Exactly, could not agree more. C-47.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Instrument Landing System...
> 
> ILS Basics
> 
> There's no greater feeling breaking out of the clouds and having a lighted runway right in front of you...



Amen Brother. I remember this one time we were flying back to our airfield and we were in the soup. I remember not seeing anything until about 100ft in front of the runway but everything was working great!


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

Lanc - ILS is a precision approach system that transmits both glideslope and azimuth signals, are very accurate and have extremely low weather minimums. Non-precision approaches give only azimuth, such as VOR or TACAN, and have higher minimums to shoot the approach.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

thanks, i was simply commenting on the superiority of British bad weather navigation aids and landing aids


----------



## Freemind757 (Jan 31, 2007)

And in britain, you NEED bad weather navightion.
Britain is like a tuppaware box for weather.
Grey in out.




Besides, my last point is that at the height of the war (june 1942) the spitfire could get over 10,000 ft highter than the mustang.
And height, in a dogfight, is everything.


----------



## Freemind757 (Jan 31, 2007)

Also, us brits came up with the jet engine your great boeings sport daily flyboy


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

Freemind757 said:


> Also, us brits came up with the jet engine your great boeings sport daily flyboy



What's your point? RR still produces some of the finest engines in aviation. Nobody disputes that.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> thanks, i was simply commenting on the superiority of British bad weather navigation aids and landing aids



what navigation aides do they use in britain that are superior to ours? I was under the impression that navaids are generally standard internationally.


----------



## Freemind757 (Jan 31, 2007)

I was commenting on the best thing to come out of the war in terms of aviation. The jet engine was quite influential. And flyboy needed taking down a peg.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 31, 2007)

Freemind757 said:


> And in britain, you NEED bad weather navightion.
> Britain is like a tuppaware box for weather.
> Grey in out.
> 
> ...


 Spare me jesus ...you have to get out and look around the UK made some good stuff but more of dubious quality\
lets see if I get this right 
Spitfire best fighter 
Lancaster best bomber
Mosquito best all round aircraft
Argosy best transport 
Shackleton best ASW
Magister best trainer
Sunderland best flying boat
Hunter/Lightning the acme of aircraft
Vulcan best strategic bomber
BAC 111 best airliner
BAE 146 best short haul 
did I miss any?


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

Freemind757 said:


> I was commenting on the best thing to come out of the war in terms of aviation. The jet engine was quite influential. And flyboy needed taking down a peg.



British, Germans, and Italians all made significant advancements in the jet engine. Germans had them operational in an A/C before the Brits. I think you may have misinterpreted FBJ...


----------



## Freemind757 (Jan 31, 2007)

mkloby said:


> British, Germans, and Italians all made significant advancements in the jet engine. Germans had them operational in an A/C before the Brits. I think you may have misinterpreted FBJ...


It's always the same.
1. Europeans Invent
2. Americans realize potential
3. Americans mass-market invention
4. Americans make money
5. Europeans try and sell product but fail because of US competition.

As for the jet engine, the original, first, modern design was british- you can't deny that.





That's just A design i found for a jet engine on the net


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

I think for the best WW2 aircraft would maybe be the P-51 Mustang.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 31, 2007)

Good picture of a turbofan, which came later. What good is an invention if it can't be transferred into military might, however.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

mkloby said:


> what navigation aides do they use in britain that are superior to ours? I was under the impression that navaids are generally standard internationally.



They are. They are standard anywhere you go so that any plane from any country can use them. I have flown all over Europe and have never noticed anything different.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

Freemind757 said:


> Also, us brits came up with the jet engine your great boeings sport daily flyboy



Not really. At the same time, the Germans were developing one as well and they were the first to operationaly use a jet engine. So you dont get all the credit.

If you really want to go into depth. The first jet engine was built in 1910 by a Romanian named Henri Coandă and built into the the Coandă-1910. It was called a Thermojet and was a hybid between jet and propellor proppelled aircraft. The aircraft only briefly took to the air and crashed on December 16, 1910.

Frank Whittle from England and Hans von Ohain from Germany started designing there "real" jet engines about the same time in the 1930s. Whittles first engine was first started in 1937 and Ohains only 5 months later.

On Aug 27, 1939 the first Germans flew the first jet powered aircraft the He-178. The He-178 was the first Jet powered aircraft. Whittle Jet engine was first flown in an aircraft in 1941 in the Gloster E28/39.

So the Brits only get half credit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

Freemind757 said:


> It's always the same.
> 1. Europeans Invent
> 2. Americans realize potential
> 3. Americans mass-market invention
> ...



 

Cry me a river...

Oh and read my post above about the jet engines. The Germans and the British were testing there jet engines at the same time...again you get only half credit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

Lt. Mereel said:


> I think for the best WW2 aircraft would maybe be the P-51 Mustang.



More to fighting a war than the fighters....

But this is your opinion.


----------



## Freemind757 (Feb 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> More to fighting a war than the fighters....
> But this is your opinion.


Ok, I didn't do enough baground checks on the jet engine, but now you're online-
The C-47   
Look, it made some impact on the ground, but what about german cargo planes? Vote for the infantry on another site, man, but just because the infantry perform well dosen't mean the plane that crarries the is the best plane in the war.
That's like saying Michael Shumaccer (probably spelt that wrong) is (was) good because of the car he drove. It was a contributing factor, but not neccisarily the most definitive one.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 1, 2007)

The C47/DC3 is still flying in great numbers and probably still being used by some militarys wheras its hard to find a JU52 or any of its brothers


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 1, 2007)

> Ok, I didn't do enough baground checks on the jet engine, but now you're online-
> The C-47
> Look, it made some impact on the ground, but what about german cargo planes? Vote for the infantry on another site, man, but just because the infantry perform well dosen't mean the plane that crarries the is the best plane in the war.
> That's like saying Michael Shumaccer (probably spelt that wrong) is (was) good because of the car he drove. It was a contributing factor, but not neccisarily the most definitive one.


The post above me is about the dumbest sh!t next to this mereel kid....

U actually think all the C-47 did was carry troops??? GO back and read all 11 pages and learn something 757.... 


freemeatball757 said:


> Vote for the infantry on another site, man


This is our site fu*kbutter, so keep ur smartass comments and little jabs to urself and ur little sister...

And a word of advice, dont bicker with a Moderator, u will lose embarrasingly...


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 2, 2007)

PB, 
tante Ju is still flying in Europe: you can actually book a flight on her, with Lufthansa (you can also use your miles)
https://www.lufthansa-ju52.de/0index.asp
and the swiss company Ju-Air
JU-AIR, Flieger-Museum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2007)

Freemind757 said:


> The C-47
> Look, it made some impact on the ground, but what about german cargo planes? Vote for the infantry on another site, man, but just because the infantry perform well dosen't mean the plane that crarries the is the best plane in the war.



The C-47 carried more cargo, supported more operations and did more supply runs than any cargo or transport aircraft of the War. The Aircraft is still in wide spread use today.

Again there is more to winning a war than the fighters.



Freemind said:


> That's like saying Michael Shumaccer (probably spelt that wrong) is (was) good because of the car he drove. It was a contributing factor, but not neccisarily the most definitive one.



 Who cares about him Schumacher is an arrogant prick.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2007)

Freemind757 said:


> Vote for the infantry on another site, man, but just because the infantry perform well dosen't mean the plane that crarries the is the best plane in the war.



Do you really think that is all the C-47 did was carry troops. If so you need to learn your history and more about aviation!

Secondly as Les has allready pointed out. I am a mod at his site, I dont need to vote about anything in any other site other this one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The C47/DC3 is still flying in great numbers and probably still being used by some militarys wheras its hard to find a JU52 or any of its brothers



I am flying on a Ju-52 later this year at an airshow in Freiburg, Germany.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 2, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> This is our site fu*kbutter, so keep ur smartass comments and little jabs to urself and ur little sister...



    Seriously - where do you come up with this stuff!? You have me hysterical on a daily basis! fu*kbutter...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 2, 2007)

It just flows out me naturally I suppose...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am flying on a Ju-52 later this year at an airshow in Freiburg, Germany.



Very cool! PICTURES, PICTURES, PICTURES!!!!


----------



## mkloby (Feb 2, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very cool! PICTURES, PICTURES, PICTURES!!!!



Yeah - for sure! How'd you land that gig Chris?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 2, 2007)

awesome


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 2, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ
> Very cool! PICTURES, PICTURES, PICTURES!!!!
> 
> Yeah - for sure! How'd you land that gig Chris?


*hears slurping noises coming across the Atlantic*


----------



## Freemind757 (Feb 2, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> The post above me is about the dumbest sh!t next to this mereel kid....
> 
> U actually think all the C-47 did was carry troops??? GO back and read all 11 pages and learn something 757....
> 
> ...



I state an argument, and I get this? I won't touch this site again with a barepole mate, don't you worry...
P.S. Ur humour is insensitive and you appear to lack any decent vocabulary.
smartass comments? Try this for size: Lude, brash, unforgiving, self centered, genteel, uncivilised, lardarsed, insensitive, right-wing little sh!t.
I wouldn't bother wiping you off my foot.


Der Andler, thankyou for replying in a decent way, maybe you can teach this guy some manners


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 2, 2007)

LMAO.... U forgot to put down former highly decorated Navy SEAL Team Member, ECHL Goon, College Lacrosse punk, wonderful father and ahighly motivated fu*kface...

And once again.....


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 2, 2007)

BYE BYE

Damn another bites the dust. Can we keep some of these morons around so we all can have some fun with them.


You Mods are no fun, we all want to have fun also. You ban these numbnuts before we all get a chance to make fun of them. You take all the enjoyment from us......LOL


----------



## evangilder (Feb 2, 2007)

Another one down in flames...Nice shooting, Dan!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 2, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> BYE BYE
> 
> Damn another bites the dust. Can we keep some of these morons around so we all can have some fun with them.
> 
> ...



Yeah let us have some fun too. There does seem to be more of them around though... They really don't understand the "you get as good as you give" moderating system on this site (which actually works very well)...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very cool! PICTURES, PICTURES, PICTURES!!!!



I will I promise. You can also thank grandpa how is a member here. He told us about it in a forum. Both me and and my wife together are going to take theflight. It will be fun.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Yeah - for sure! How'd you land that gig Chris?



It is an airshow in Freiburg, Germany and you can pay for flights in the Ju-52. I believe the money goes to help with the maintenance and upkeep which is cool by me. I have no problems giving out money to keep a WW2 aircraft alive.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 2, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is an airshow in Freiburg, Germany and you can pay for flights in the Ju-52. I believe the money goes to help with the maintenance and upkeep which is cool by me. I have no problems giving out money to keep a WW2 aircraft alive.



What a thrill. I have been sorely temped to take ride on the B-17 or B-24 they have flying around here. The B-17 would be special since my father-in-law worked on them in WWII. I just haven't built up the courage to spend the money.

*Classic Military Warnings*

"Bravery is being the only one who knows you're afraid" David Hackworth


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> They are. They are standard anywhere you go so that any plane from any country can use them. I have flown all over Europe and have never noticed anything different.



I meant in WWII, you know, on account of how this is a WWII thread and how much i love to keep things on topic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2007)

Lanc when it comes to WW2 the British NAV systems were no different or better than the other allies. They were standard so they could all use them.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lanc when it comes to WW2 the British NAV systems were no different or better than the other allies. They were standard so they could all use them.



But the Brit pilots were better aviators back then, as they're still better now - so they can use the navaids with better skill than us yankees!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2007)

Dont give Lanc fuel. He believes what you just said.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

well i have no reason not to


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2007)

This coming from they guy who thinks looking like a long haired Elton John is cool!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2007)

well i thonught i looked rather dashing 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2007)

For Sheep maybe!


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hey, I got a pullover made from Merino sheep, and I can promise you it is cozy and warm.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2007)

Carefull he might be on his way to your house to pick it up.


----------



## YakFlyer (Feb 14, 2007)

It is because of the idiotic British Air Ministry that Meteor's didn't line the airfields in late 1940, ready to intercept He111s and Do17s, because that's what could have happened had Whittle been taken seriously. 
Von Ohain got alot further, in the development stage, early on, but then the RLM decided they (Jet units) were not required and so both sides had jet powered fighters much later on. 
The Brits invented everything, and as someone said earlier, the Americans (and Japanese) made the inventions work, reliably, in the case of the Japanese!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2007)

Are you saying that Japanese WW2 equipment was reliable?


----------



## mkloby (Feb 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Are you saying that Japanese WW2 equipment was reliable?



Everyone knows that it's true! Really though, some of their weapons were so crude it makes you want to look up interchangeable parts...


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2007)

Look, just face it. Britain invented the world, we came up with all the formulas, metallugary, weapons, electronics, seas (yes, we invented the ocean - it was all land before Britain came), the sky...(without Britain there'd be NO sky for you yanks to fly in), space, the moon, the Sun (before Britain, it was dark - that's the real reason we had the DARK AGEs) 

And do we get any thanks? No! You bloody young nations have it made. Britain worked its fingers to the bone 36 hours a day to reduce the working days for you lot, and when it finally finished it died and couldn't feed its population on anything but grubs and garden worms. Then, after 3 minutes sleep it'd set its population back to work for another 36 hours to develop the freakin' HOUSE ! Just so YOU lot had somewhere to live. 

Face it, we discovered, invented and developed EVERYTHING on this planet - and the planet itself ! 

And you Americans are all right-wing, megolomaniac, corporate, arrogant, fascists. 

So there, poo on you.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2007)

Geeee.....


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 15, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Look, just face it. Britain invented the world, we came up with all the formulas, metallugary, weapons, electronics, seas (yes, we invented the ocean - it was all land before Britain came), the sky...(without Britain there'd be NO sky for you yanks to fly in), space, the moon, the Sun (before Britain, it was dark - that's the real reason we had the DARK AGEs)
> 
> And do we get any thanks? No! You bloody young nations have it made. Britain worked its fingers to the bone 36 hours a day to reduce the working days for you lot, and when it finally finished it died and couldn't feed its population on anything but grubs and garden worms. Then, after 3 minutes sleep it'd set its population back to work for another 36 hours to develop the freakin' HOUSE ! Just so YOU lot had somewhere to live.
> 
> ...



... so finally we know whom we have to blame for everything that is made wrong?

gosh, 20+ centuries of blasphemy wasted against and innocent Entity... no wonders that He is so pissed and waiting for all of us to arrange the bill at Armageddon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2007)

Thank you for brightening my day up pD!


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Look, just face it. Britain invented the world, we came up with all the formulas, metallugary, weapons, electronics, seas (yes, we invented the ocean - it was all land before Britain came), the sky...(without Britain there'd be NO sky for you yanks to fly in), space, the moon, the Sun (before Britain, it was dark - that's the real reason we had the DARK AGEs)
> 
> And do we get any thanks? No! You bloody young nations have it made. Britain worked its fingers to the bone 36 hours a day to reduce the working days for you lot, and when it finally finished it died and couldn't feed its population on anything but grubs and garden worms. Then, after 3 minutes sleep it'd set its population back to work for another 36 hours to develop the freakin' HOUSE ! Just so YOU lot had somewhere to live.
> 
> ...



British = Genius ?

So the Brits invented everything eh? Now that is bull….. and you know it.
It was the Bavarians/Germans who invented; Lederhosen, Sauerkraut, Schuhplattln, Jodeln the Octoberfest and the transfer of citizen ship which made Hitler a German, and the Pizza was invented by the Americans (at least they believe so  ).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2007)

You do realize Wespe that he was making a joke right? I think you were as well, but I dont know you eneogh yet to tell.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You do realize Wespe that he was making a joke right? I think you were as well, but I dont know you eneogh yet to tell.



Aber Hallo,

Since when do Germans possess humor? They are cool, straight forward, and blond, have all blue eyes, eat Sauerkraut and have totally no sense for jokes.

And the British are all gays, and the men in the north wear skirts.   

Have fun
Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2007)

Allright I got you know, just had to make sure. Where in Germany do you live? I was born and raised in Stuttgart but live in Ansbach now.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 15, 2007)

That "skirt" has a name (it is also _not_ a skirt however much anyone says it is).


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> That "skirt" has a name (it is also _not_ a skirt however much anyone says it is).



Hi Scotsman,

No offence meant, actually those kilts look great, and a friend of mine borrowed me his for a great photo-shot. 
So keep those bagpipes going 

Wespe


----------



## Burador (Feb 17, 2007)

According to The History Channel, about half of all the Nobel Prize awarded for inventions of all kinds were received by Germans.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 17, 2007)

And that's good - and the best over-all aircraft of WW2 if not all time is still the DC-3/ C-47...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 17, 2007)

Agreed on the C-47 Joe, as does any other well informed member...


----------



## Jank (Feb 17, 2007)

Didn't the Brits invent gingivitis?


----------



## Burador (Feb 18, 2007)

Jank said:


> Didn't the Brits invent gingivitis?



I believe so. It's because of drinking too much tea. Heh, heh, heh.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

And according to the historic master novel - Asterix and Obelix in Britain, it was Miraculix who brought the Tea to England.
Beat that plan_D

Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

C-47 all the way....


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Come on after all it was a transport plane, and one of many developments that helped the US to win the war just as the Willis Jeep.

It couldn't perform in anything else besides transport.

So how could it be the best "overall plane" if it could only perform in one mision characteristic ?

It is still the Me-262, reason:

Could fullfil almost any mission, but at about 150-200 km faster then anything else around.

So best overall plane ? Yes the Me-262


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Come on after all it was a transport plane, and one of many developments that helped the US to win the war just as the Willis Jeep.
> 
> It couldn't perform in anything else besides transport.
> 
> ...



Read back through the thread... Alongside transport it also did troop carrying, glider tug, parachute jump plane and general airline like work. Essentially without it the Allies would not of been able to supply their troops so effectively and get there supplies to where they needed to be and so the war would of lasted longer.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Read back through the thread... Alongside transport it also did troop carrying, glider tug, parachute jump plane and general airline like work. Essentially without it the Allies would not of been able to supply their troops so effectively and get there supplies to where they needed to be and so the war would of lasted longer.



Hi Gnomey
Transport, troop carrying, parachutist transport,cargo and passanger transport, supply, glider tug, so exept for the last one it is all transport, which doesn't make a plane an "overall best" amongst planes, just the "best transport plane",to which I would certainly agree.

So it is still the Me-262, reasons - please see above.
Wespe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Besides all the missions and roles mentioned earlier in the thread, the DC-3/ C-47 set the stage for modern aircraft production. The way the aircraft was assembled planned, constructed and delivered was adopted by almost all the major aircraft manufacturers. It's basic cockpit set-up and arrangement of instruments, standardization of controls and set up of systems have evolved to what you see on modern airliners and multi-engined combat aircraft. And finally - longevity. 50 years after it first flew several hundred are still flying and it was used by dozens of the world airforces and some may still be used today in a military role. The aircraft was relatively simple to work on and therefore it survived the rigors of time. No other WW2 aircraft could lay claim to any of this. Those naysayers who continue to pump a combat plane into "the best overall" actually don't understand that there is more to flying than stalking and shooting bullets at your enemy..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Come on after all it was a transport plane, and one of many developments that helped the US to win the war just as the Willis Jeep.
> 
> It couldn't perform in anything else besides transport.
> 
> So how could it be the best "overall plane" if it could only perform in one mision characteristic ?



Come on man. There is more to winning a war than the fighters and bombers. You can not win a war without the troops getting supplies, ammo, medical supplies, and troop reinforcements. The C-47 hauled more supplies than any aircraft in WW2 and it is still in use today.

Using your logic when I was in Iraq I did not contribute anything to the war effort as a Support Helicopter crewmember. I just flew the troops to the battle, I resupplied them and flew the wounded. I guess though (again with your logic) since I only had 2 machine guns on my aircraft I did not help "fight" the war. 

Okay eneogh of that, lets get back on topic.



Wespe said:


> It is still the Me-262, reason:
> 
> Could fullfil almost any mission, but at about 150-200 km faster then anything else around.
> 
> So best overall plane ? Yes the Me-262



You say it could fullfill any mission. Stop kidding youself man!

Could the Me-262 drop torpedos to sink ships? Could it transport troops? Could it evacuate wounded? 

All it could do was shoot down bombers and drop a small (very small amount of bombs), and do some photo recon....

....Nothing else....

The Me-262 was the best jet fighter to see service but it did not to contribute to a Luftwaffe victory.

Pipedreams man, that is all you have....

Again there is more to winning a war than the gun slingers. I will repeat myself anyone with knowledge of military operations knows this...


----------



## Burador (Feb 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You say it could fullfill any mission. Stop kidding youself man!
> 
> Could the Me-262 drop torpedos to sink ships? Could it transport troops? Could it evacuate wounded?
> 
> ...



For the world's first jet fighter, roles such as shooting down bombers (and heavy bombers like the B-17 at that), drop some bombs, do photo reconnaisance, etc., I call that a very versatile fighter. But there were only a very few of them to be decisive against the USAAF. Germany's problem in that point of the war was almost always inferiority in numbers and fighting a big 2-front war. As to the C-47/DC-3, yes being a versatile transport carrier is a plus but you will need the gunslingers to protect you from like say, enemy bombers destroying everything including your airfields and enemy ground-attack aircraft strafing anything around. But everything, like fighters, bombers, transport carriers, etc. should work together in order to satisfy military operations.


----------



## mkloby (Feb 18, 2007)

So - am I training to not contribute to the war effort when I deploy next year too?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Burador said:


> For the world's first jet fighter, roles such as shooting down bombers (and heavy bombers like the B-17 at that), drop some bombs, do photo reconnaisance, etc., I call that a very versatile fighter. But there were only a very few of them to be decisive against the USAAF. Germany's problem in that point of the war was almost always inferiority in numbers and fighting a big 2-front war. As to the C-47/DC-3, yes being a versatile transport carrier is a plus but you will need the gunslingers to protect you from like say, enemy bombers destroying everything including your airfields and enemy ground-attack aircraft strafing anything around. But everything, like fighters, bombers, transport carriers, etc. should work together in order to satisfy military operations.



Yes but shooting bullets and dropping bombs is just the tip of the iceberg. More goes into winning a war. Just because an aircraft can do so does not make it the best aircraft of the war.

Opinions are fine but I want to see facts from Wespe that show that the Me-262 was the best aircraft ever built in WW2. Facts....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

mkloby said:


> So - am I training to not contribute to the war effort when I deploy next year too?



Yes mkloby. You are training to be a low life transport, cargo, resupply, and support aircraft flyer that does nothing for the war effort. My 14 months in Iraq was worthless....

How dare you mkloby for not resigning your commission because they did not give you F-18s, Harriers or Cobras so that you can truely make a difference!!!!



Lets get back on topic here...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Military operation knowledge eh!!


Well someone with military knowledge or military operation knowledge can also tell you that one thing doesn’t go without the other thing, meaning logistics alone have never won a war, and you will still need troops and combat vehicles and combat aircraft.
So since you also know that, you shouldn’t be so one-sided. 
But if you want to put your criteria’s regarding the “best plane” into logistics and therefore support, yes you would be correct the best plane for these criteria’s would indeed be the C-47 which I never disputed.
Since it was not a combat plane I leave it up to you and others to decide what won the 2nd WW logistics or combat?
Using your logic it would have been logistics alone.
And just because the Me-262 couldn’t carry torpedoes - come on so what? And since Germany didn’t win the war, automatically no German plane can be the best? “did not to contribute to a Luftwaffe victory”, according to your logic.

It was the Me-262 that brought a milestone in aviation history – changing the world’s air forces, manufacturers and strategic thinking from prop to jet. The C-47 was just a dam good transport plane and it has no impact on the design or layout of any present Military cargo plane. 
It would be the Ju 90 (Cargo Ramp) or the Arado (double boom and Cargo ramp) which left an impact on the following developments or today’s military cargo planes.

Just because the US won the war, and therefore logically stopped any continuance on behalf of any German development, doesn’t mean to me that they had the best. The fact that the US are the masters of mass production also doesn’t justify a reason to declare something the best, Just because Ford motors can cheaply mass produce doesn’t say anything about having the best cars.

So the fact that the Me-262 could do anything in comparison to prop planes for the same mission spectrum at 200km +, and the fact that it kicked of the jet age, makes it to me still the best overall combat fighter.

If you want to place the debate generally on behalf of planes, than how about the Havard Texas Trainer aircraft? 

No Trainer – no pilots, right? 8) please see below text.

When production ceased more than 10,000 British pilots had been trained on Harvards, not to mention those from Canada, America, Rhodesia and South Africa, with many moving onto Spitfires, Mustangs and other types. Even the Japanese built a variant under license in 1940, albeit with a Japanese engine and in the 1960's were to receive AT-6's from the US Government to enable former Japanese Navy pilots to re-qualify. The Luftwaffe's new Flying Training School was opened in 1955 with 145 brand new Canadian built Harvard 4's under the US Military Defence Aid Program and manned by RAF instructors. At some time, nearly every Air Force in the world operated the type, with 14 Air Forces still using them as recently as 1985.

Wespe


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 18, 2007)

Logistics alone may of never won a war but they have sure as hell have lost wars on their own... No ammo, fuel, food etc = no fighting for any vehicle or infantry.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Logistics alone may of never won a war but they have sure as hell have lost wars on their own... No ammo, fuel, food etc = no fighting for any vehicle or infantry.



I dont think that Germany had much of a logistic problem in the West-front, what Germany had was a Industrial capacity/ human recources, rawmaterial supply and production-manufacturing problem, which also made them loose the war. - not logistics -


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

wespe said:


> I dont think that Germany had much of a logistic problem in the West-front


Really??? In late 1944, how many trains do u think went west to east unmolested???? The Germans had all sorts of logistic problems.... For Christs sake, they were using horses and mules...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Military operation knowledge eh!!



Yeah I have that...




Wespe said:


> Well someone with military knowledge or military operation knowledge can also tell you that one thing doesn’t go without the other thing, meaning logistics alone have never won a war, and you will still need troops and combat vehicles and combat aircraft.



And without fuel the fighter aint gonna fly. Without ammo, they are not going to shoot anything down. Without spare parts they are not going to fly. Without replacement crews they are not going to fly.



Wespe said:


> So since you also know that, you shouldn’t be so one-sided.



I am one sided? You are the one that thinks that if it was not made by Germany it was a piece of crap... Or atleast you lead me to believe that with your posts.



Wespe said:


> But if you want to put your criteria’s regarding the “best plane” into logistics and therefore support, yes you would be correct the best plane for these criteria’s would indeed be the C-47 which I never disputed.



No aircraft made more of a contribution to the war as a whole than the C-47.



Wespe said:


> Since it was not a combat plane I leave it up to you and others to decide what won the 2nd WW logistics or combat?



A bit of both. However was it the allies or Germany that in the end had eneogh fuel for there aircraft? Had eneogh spare parts for there aircraft? Had eneogh spare pilots for there aircraft? Had the largest production capacity? Think about it...



Wespe said:


> Using your logic it would have been logistics alone.



Nope never said that. However I do realize that fighters and bombers dont win a war alone...



Wespe said:


> And just because the Me-262 couldn’t carry torpedoes - come on so what?



You said that that the Me-262 was the most versatile aircraft of WW2. I gave your proof that it was not. Prove me wrong then...

....You cant.



Wespe said:


> And since Germany didn’t win the war, automatically no German plane can be the best? “did not to contribute to a Luftwaffe victory”, according to your logic.



No I never said that. I happen to be a Luftwaffe aircraft fan. I personally think the Ta-152 was the best aircraft built. I think the Me-262 was the best jet fighter to see service in WW2. 

However I do not fool myself into thinking that the everything German was the greatest thing since bread and butter. I do not let my Pride for my German heritage get involved.



Wespe said:


> It was the Me-262 that brought a milestone in aviation history – changing the world’s air forces, manufacturers and strategic thinking from prop to jet.



I agree but that does not make it the greatest thing to fly in WW2. Your opinion is noted and allowed since everyone has an opinion and opinions are good but show me proof that makes the Me-262 the best aircraft to see service in WW2.

Can you... I dont think so....




Wespe said:


> The C-47 was just a dam good transport plane and it has no impact on the design or layout of any present Military cargo plane.



That is completely wrong. It revolutized the way cargo and transport planes were designed and built. The way there cockpits were design. It ushered in the new era of modern commercial and military transports.

Hundreds of C-47s are still flying, how many original Me-262s are flying today?

Many Allied campaigns would have failed had it not been for the C-47. Fact is fact my friend.



Wespe said:


> It would be the Ju 90 (Cargo Ramp) or the Arado (double boom and Cargo ramp) which left an impact on the following developments or today’s military cargo planes.



No they did not. The C-47 is what based the designs for all further cargo aircraft. It set the bar. Again fact is fact.



Wespe said:


> Just because the US won the war, and therefore logically stopped any continuance on behalf of any German development, doesn’t mean to me that they had the best. The fact that the US are the masters of mass production also doesn’t justify a reason to declare something the best, Just because Ford motors can cheaply mass produce doesn’t say anything about having the best cars.



I never said that. Now you are just getting off topic. Lets stay on topic and prove to me that the Me-262 is the best aircraft built during WW2. I dont think you can.



Wespe said:


> So the fact that the Me-262 could do anything in comparison to prop planes for the same mission spectrum at 200km +, and the fact that it kicked of the jet age, makes it to me still the best overall combat fighter.



That is an opinion and I respect that. But I dont think it could do anything and everything in comparison with prop aircraft.



Wespe said:


> If you want to place the debate generally on behalf of planes, than how about the Havard Texas Trainer aircraft?



Great aircraft and I have flown in them and worked on a T-6 engine. 



Wespe said:


> No Trainer – no pilots, right? 8) please see below text.
> 
> When production ceased more than 10,000 British pilots had been trained on Harvards, not to mention those from Canada, America, Rhodesia and South Africa, with many moving onto Spitfires, Mustangs and other types. Even the Japanese built a variant under license in 1940, albeit with a Japanese engine and in the 1960's were to receive AT-6's from the US Government to enable former Japanese Navy pilots to re-qualify. The Luftwaffe's new Flying Training School was opened in 1955 with 145 brand new Canadian built Harvard 4's under the US Military Defence Aid Program and manned by RAF instructors. At some time, nearly every Air Force in the world operated the type, with 14 Air Forces still using them as recently as 1985.
> 
> Wespe



I think it was the best advanced trainer of WW2. Just my opinion though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

Good arguments Adler, dont think he can prove the 262 either...


> The C-47 was just a dam good transport plane and it has no impact on the design or layout of any present Military cargo plane.


Ever hear of the C-130??? It was a direct decendant of the C-47...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Good arguments Adler, dont think he can prove the 262 either...
> Ever hear of the C-130??? It was a direct decendant of the C-47...



Jesus...

you want to put the whole war into the last 6 month ? okay you are right on that one, but the inital reason for that was - no production capacity -
not enough fighters, not enough tanks, not enough **** of everything due to the total neglect in views of production policy and the amount of enemies. which results also in -logistic- problems.
If the US would have produced at German level, who would care about a C-47, or Mustang, B-17s or the US logistic performance.

Logistics only come into effect if there is a production/ flow of material to back it up and units to carry forward the fight. right ?

And look at Vietnam all the logistics in the world didn't help the US to finish of that war desisivly in time, so at the end despite logistic superiority (the VC's carried their logistics on their backs) and production they had to anounce their withdrawl.

And what please have a C-130 and a C-47 in common? about as much as a V2 to an Apollo rocket.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

> And look at Vietnam all the logistics in the world didn't help the US to finish of that war desisivly in time


The reason why that War wasnt won was because of political interferance...


> Logistics only come into effect if there is a production/ flow of material to back it up and units to carry forward the fight. right ?


This is quite true, but whats ur point??? Production is not in question here... Do u honestly believe that the 262 made more of a difference in WW2 than the C-47 did???

I hope not cause u are very misinformed then... Read this whole thread if u havent....

As for having something in common, the c-130 took over the role of primary transport from the c-47, and used the lesson learned to make a better aircraft...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah I have that...
> 
> So do I
> 
> ...



Good we agree


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> And what please have a C-130 and a C-47 in common? about as much as a V2 to an Apollo rocket.


WRONG!!!! The set up of crew positions, the location of power levers and propeller controls, feathering buttons gages on the co-pilots side and even a specialized cargo door, all refined in later models such as the C-87 and later the C-130 but all descendants from the C-47. Just on reliability and fulfilling it's designed mission the C-47 has any WW2 fighter beat hands down. If the Me 262 had a 25% FMC rate at any given time I'd be surprised. There's not much you could do with a bomber destroyer that has 25 or 50 hour engines on it and that's not taking anything away from the -262, it was a great and innovative aircraft. You have to look at the whole picture. Even in it's earliest form, I'd like to see an Me 262 fly a non precision approach with 1 mile visibility...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

We agree? I never said in my post that the Me-262 was the best aircraft of WW2.

By the way Wespe whether you wish to realize it or not the C-47 influenced all post war transport aircraft from the way the intereriors were designed to the cockpit layout.

Oh and you need to fix that post. You qouted everything and it is too hard to read.

Please post some facts here to prove your point, because we have all shown you proof that it was not...

Until you do so your arguement is lost...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

FBJ do you by any chance have any tables showing the ammount of cargo, number of troops and so forth that was carried by the C-47 in WW2?


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> The reason why that War wasnt won was because of political interferance...
> 
> -The US had enough time to finish of that war and use their logistic superiority, before politics came in-
> 
> ...



-come on those two planes have nothing in common-
-the ramp was taken over from the Ju 90 or Arado-
-taking over the role, doesn't proof any common attributes-
-The Tiger took over the Pz.IV, so what do they have in common?
-The Tiger incooperated lessons learned from the PzIV- does that make the Pz IV the master piece of ingenuity ?

The C-47 had a desisive impact on the war due to its logistic performance and production setup which showed the way for future production layouts of modern aircraft factories, agreed
And the Me-262 had a desisive impact on the layout of any post war airforce.
It was the upcomming of the German jet fighter Me-262 that made props fade away into history.
So both are right in their opinion, right ?

Wespe


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

Right, but I think u ar downplaying the role the C-47 had in the C-130's developement...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> We agree? I never said in my post that the Me-262 was the best aircraft of WW2.
> 
> By the way Wespe whether you wish to realize it or not the C-47 influenced all post war transport aircraft from the way the intereriors were designed to the cockpit layout.



We agree on the Havard, off course nothing else.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Right, but I think u ar downplaying the role the C-47 had in the C-130's developement...



You probably are right on that one, because I am definatly not an expert on Transportplanes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Because it is fact that the Me-262 other than being an innovative aircraft had not impact on the war and was no where the greatest aircraft of WW2. Infact no jet engined aircraft of WW2 can even be considered.

I am still waiting for your proof and facts. I still dont think you have anything substantial.

Oh and on the C-47 read FBJs post up there. I am sure will you not believe it because the C-47 was not built by Messerschmitt or Junkers....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Oh and on your downplay of the C-47 in allied victories here is some info:

"During World War II, the armed forces of many countries used the C-47 and modified DC-3s for the transport of troops, cargo and wounded. Over 10,000 aircraft were produced in Long Beach and Santa Monica, California and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. *The C-47 was vital to the success of many Allied campaigns, in particular those at Guadalcanal and in the jungles of New Guinea and Burma where the C-47 (and its naval version, the R4D) alone made it possible for Allied troops to counter the mobility of the light-travelling Japanese army. Additionally, C-47s were used to airlift supplies to the embattled American forces during the Battle of Bastogne. But possibly its most influential role in military aviation was flying The Hump from India into China where the expertise gain would later be used in the Berlin Airlift in which the C-47 would also play its part.*

C-47 Skytrain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Every branch of the U.S military and all the major allied powers flew it. The U.S. Navy version was the R4D. The British and the Australians designated it the Dakota (a clever acronym comprised of the letters DACoTA for Douglas Aircraft Company Transport Aircraft). *The aircraft operated from every continent in the world and participated in every major battle.* By the end of World War II, more than 10,000 had been built. For all of its official and unofficial names, it came to be known universally as the Gooney Bird. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, termed it one of the most vital pieces of military equipment used in winning the war. 

The ubiquity of the Skytrain-Dakota-Gooney Bird transport, and its ability to operate from very rough forward airstrips, made it familiar to millions of Allied forces stationed around the world. The C–47 and its rel-atives not only pioneered in-theater wartime routes but also served as VIP transports, general personnel transports, troop carriers, glider tugs, paratroop assault transports, cargo transports, airborne ambulances, air-sea rescue craft, and special operations aircraft. Supporters of the airplane liked to quote a remark attributed to Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower: “Four things won the Second World War—the bazooka, the Jeep, the atom bomb, and the C–47 Gooney Bird.” 
"
C-47 Skytrain


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FBJ do you by any chance have any tables showing the ammount of cargo, number of troops and so forth that was carried by the C-47 in WW2?


I'll try to find one...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Good because that would be more proof for our side of the arguement, even though we dont really need it because no counter proof has been given.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> WRONG!!!! The set up of crew positions, the location of power levers and propeller controls, feathering buttons gages on the co-pilots side and even a specialized cargo door, all refined in later models such as the C-87 and later the C-130 but all descendants from the C-47. Just on reliability and fulfilling it's designed mission the C-47 has any WW2 fighter beat hands down. If the Me 262 had a 25% FMC rate at any given time I'd be surprised. There's not much you could do with a bomber destroyer that has 25 or 50 hour engines on it and that's not taking anything away from the -262, it was a great and innovative aircraft. You have to look at the whole picture. Even in it's earliest form, I'd like to see an Me 262 fly a non precision approach with 1 mile visibility...



It is a matter of definition towards setting an inovative trend and its actual impact. I agree to the features that you describe as having derived from the C-47, but it doesn't make the C-47 to the forefather of todays Transport planes in my eyes, but that is just my opinion.
I think it was the Germans who brought up ejection seats, but I would refrain myself from saying that all modern ejection seats derive from the German one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> And the Me-262 had a desisive impact on the layout of any post war airforce.
> It was the upcomming of the German jet fighter Me-262 that made props fade away into history.
> So both are right in their opinion, right ?
> 
> Wespe




NO - although innovative, as a safe reliable combat aircraft it was crap. Had the war progressed and engineers had the ability to fine tune some of the idiocyncracies, the Me 262 might of been competitive with even 2nd generation jet combat aircraft (Mig-15, F-86, etc.). It was too little too late to make any real difference but it's psychological impact would be it's biggest achievement.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Please Wespe post your facts. We are all waiting.

Also please post facts that prove the Me-262 as the most versatile aircraft of WW2 as you claim. You also have said that in the Best Aircraft with Different Roles thread. 

Why dont you list every role that the aircraft could truely perform.

In this forum buddy you have to come up with hard facts to prove a point...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

Glad to see that u finally agree that the 47 did infact influence the 130...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

> In this forum buddy you have to come up with hard facts to prove a point...


Especially when coming from a noob...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Come on guy's

we are turning in circles. I have never stated any doubts about the C-47 abilities or impact it had on logistics.

I stated that the Me-262 is to me the greatest aircraft of WWII, because it marked a new era in aeronautics and future layouts of modern air forces, therefore it moved the props into history.
I stated that in comparable mission spectrum the Me-262 could do the same as any prop but at 200km plus.

Those are facts, and if someone doesn't want to recognize these facts, than I dont have a problem, but please don't state, that I have not given any.

Wespe


----------



## mkloby (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> I stated that the Me-262 is to me the greatest aircraft of WWII, because it marked a new era in aeronautics and future layouts of modern air forces, therefore it moved the props into history.



So according to that post - there shouldn't be any military prop driven A/C in use today. That's odd, because off the top of my head I can name the E-2, C-12, C-130, T-34, T-6, MV-22 (proprotors), P-3, T-44... and I'm probably missing some. Props did not fade into history due to the turbojets, and certainly the 262 didn't move them into history.

You're missing all the guys' arguments. Try thinking what A/C was the most influential in the role it played in WWII. The Me-262's actual contribution to the war effort was overall rather small, and certainly pales in comparison to that of the C-47.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> I stated that the Me-262 is to me the greatest aircraft of WWII, because it marked a new era in aeronautics and future layouts of modern air forces, therefore it moved the props into history.


The jet didn't make "props" obsolete, if anything it enhanced the propeller/ turbine combination. The Jet made the reciprocating engine obsolete (in some cases). "Props" are still around for a reason and I don't think you fully grasp how propulsion systems evolved and are actually used today. With that said and again repeating the C-47 introduced a cockpit layout, systems and functions that are the design norm in ALL aircraft today - that's one of the things that make it the greatest aircraft of WW2 and of all time...


----------



## Burador (Feb 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NO - although innovative, as a safe reliable combat aircraft it was crap. Had the war progressed and engineers had the ability to fine tune some of the idiocyncracies, the Me 262 might of been competitive with even 2nd generation jet combat aircraft (Mig-15, F-86, etc.). It was too little too late to make any real difference but it's psychological impact would be it's biggest achievement.



I wouldn't say that the Me-252 was a crap. I wonder if you have flown one. But even if you did I would surmise that the 262 you'd be flying would be a degraded one. Negative statements about the plane would be highly suspicious for it would surely come from Allied propaganda since it first flew until the present time, just as the Allies have done with the Bf-109. From what I understand the only real problem with the jet was its steel turbine not made of titanium alloy which required it to be replaced every few hours of operation. The jet was really capable, it was not just a bluff machine.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

mkloby said:


> So according to that post - there shouldn't be any military prop driven A/C in use today. That's odd, because off the top of my head I can name the E-2, C-12, C-130, T-34, T-6, MV-22 (proprotors), P-3, T-44... and I'm probably missing some. Props did not fade into history due to the turbojets, and certainly the 262 didn't move them into history.
> 
> You're missing all the guys' arguments. Try thinking what A/C was the most influential in the role it played in WWII. The Me-262's actual contribution to the war effort was overall rather small, and certainly pales in comparison to that of the C-47.



You don't get it do you? "the most influential in the role it played in WWII" did I ever state that the C-47 did NOT PLAY AN INFLUENTIAL ROLE IN LOGISTICS????

You try to show me your knowledge about the inventory about the USAF or what?
It is obvious to me, that todays modern and desisive fighter aircraft are jet propelled and not props. No matter if the Argentinians are producing Pampas (cant remember the dam name right now) and Brazilians Tucanos.
Since the Me-262 did go into action in March 45, off course their was no big contribution to WWII on German behalf, and every kid knows Germany lost the war. And because the US won, everything that contributed to WWII must off course be American or in the worst case British, otherwise how could they have won? And the best tank in WWII was the Sherman, because it influenced the Abrahms (they both have a cannon) and It contributed to winning the war.
If every future discussion comes down to contribution (winning) towards the WWII, than what do you want to discuss about ?

The Ta 152 better than .......
Answer NO because it didn't contribute
The 109 better than .....
Answer NO because it didn't contribute
MK 108 better than ...........
Answer NO because it didn't contribute
Did the Germans have anything at all?
Answer NO because it didn't contribute


Anything else?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Burador said:


> I wouldn't say that the Me-252 was a crap. I wonder if you have flown one.


50 hour (if you were lucky) engines, and airframes with dissimilar metal construction, (if you even know what that is) little or no corrosion control process during construction and no I really wouldn't want to have flown on in its WW2 combat form. BTW I have flown jets and know what it takes to maintain and operate them. Can you say the same?


Burador said:


> But even if you did I would surmise that the 262 you'd be flying would be a degraded one. Negative statements about the plane would be highly suspicious for it would surely come from Allied propaganda since it first flew until the present time, just as the Allies have done with the Bf-109.


Wrong again pal, if you read my earlier post you would find I have nothing but admiration for German WW2 aircraft which I know were superior to many allied birds.


Burador said:


> From what I understand the only real problem with the jet was its steel turbine not made of titanium alloy which required it to be replaced every few hours of operation. The jet was really capable, it was not just a bluff machine.


Read my post again pal, there was a lot more than that which was needed to make it a safe reliable combat machine - it was too little too late. For a noob here I suggest you read several threads on get your facts straight about what some of the membership have said earlier in this thread, let a lone our backgrounds in aviation....


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 50 hour (if you were lucky) engines, and airframes with dissimilar metal construction, (if you even know what that is) little or no corrosion control process during construction and no I really wouldn't want to have flown on in its WW2 combat form. BTW I have flown jets and know what it takes to maintain and operate them. Can you say the same?
> Wrong again pal, if you read my earlier post you would find I have nothing but admiration for German WW2 aircraft which I know were superior to many allied birds.
> Read my post again pal, there was a lot more than that which was needed to make it a safe reliable combat machine - it was too little too late. For a noob here I suggest you read several threads on get your facts straight about what some of the membership have said earlier in this thread, let a lone our backgrounds in aviation....



Wow, I really don't know what to say,
Quote:Wrong again pal, if you read my earlier post you would find I have nothing but admiration for German WW2 aircraft which I know were superior to many allied birds.
Which German crap plane was superior to allied planes?
The Germans didn't have a single plane that contributed to winning the war, only loosing.
The Me-262 fell apart, the Ta-152 not even really in Service,The D's just barley touching a P-51 and didn't win the war, the Bf-109s ??? or do you reflect in allied birds, more the Russians and English?

Tell me more, please


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Wow, I really don't know what to say,
> Quote:Wrong again pal, if you read my earlier post you would find I have nothing but admiration for German WW2 aircraft which I know were superior to many allied birds.


Just to humor you - FW 190D (My oppinion the best fighter of the war, Bf 109K series and the Ta 152...



Wespe said:


> Which German crap plane was superior to allied planes?


Read above and they weren't crap...


Wespe said:


> The Germans didn't have a single plane that contributed to winning the war, only loosing.


Well Germany lost, you want to rewrite history?


Wespe said:


> The Me-262 fell apart, the Ta-152 not even really in Service,The D's just barley touching a P-51 and didn't win the war, the Bf-109s ??? or do you reflect in allied birds, more the Russians and English?
> 
> Tell me more, please



All the above - even with the FW 190D, Me 262 and late model Me 109s with the best pilots flying them, it was all too little too late and that's not my opinion. I could go into another dissertation why the Luftwaffe lost but I thin its quite evident...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Glad to see that u finally agree that the 47 did infact influence the 130...



Heeeyyy, 

did I say that I agree ? I said I do not know much about Transportplanes, so if you guys consider the adapting of a cockpit layout and a cargo door as influential to any modern transport a/c, well then I feel free to let you have your own opinion to that.

Wespe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> if you guys consider the adapting of a cockpit layout and a cargo door as influential to any modern transport a/c, well then I feel free to let you have your own opinion to that.
> 
> Wespe



It's a little bit beyond opinion, about 70 year's worth...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Just to humor you - FW 190D (My oppinion the best fighter of the war, Bf 109K series and the Ta 152...
> 
> 
> Read above and they weren't crap...
> ...



Tanks    

I knew that you Americans can be so generous if you want to.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> I stated that the Me-262 is to me the greatest aircraft of WWII, because it marked a new era in aeronautics and future layouts of modern air forces, therefore it moved the props into history.



No actually when you stated "Come on Guys it was just a transport" and basically implied that it could not have had the impact that it did on the whole war and could not have possibly been the best aircraft used in WW2 you started this...

Now if you wish to end it, prove us wrong.



Wespe said:


> I stated that in comparable mission spectrum the Me-262 could do the same as any prop but at 200km plus.



No in this thread you stated the Me-262 was the best aircraft and that it was the most versatile and you said this in another forum as well. Go back and read you own posts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Tanks
> 
> I knew that you Americans can be so generous if you want to.


And blunt - 

But in all seriousness, I think aircraft like the Fw 190D were far superior to anything the US had available in late 1944 - The Luftwaffe had 3 things to do - stop an invading army, stop a bombardment from the air, and deal with escorting fighters. As good as their aircraft were they couldn't do all three...


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It's a little bit beyond opinion, about 70 year's worth...



Hey great pictures,

so what is the difference between a Ju 90 cockpit and that of the C-130 ?
I am sure you have a picture, if you don't mind please post it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> You don't get it do you? "the most influential in the role it played in WWII" did I ever state that the C-47 did NOT PLAY AN INFLUENTIAL ROLE IN LOGISTICS????



And what did Logistics contribute to? Winning the war. No one is claiming the Me-262 was not a good aircraft. But it was not the best. If it is then please post some facts. We are still waiting...



Wespe said:


> Since the Me-262 did go into action in March 45,



Actually you might want to check your dates. The Me-262 flew its first operational sorties against the allies with Kommando Nowotny in August 1944. Nowotny was even shot down in November 1944.



Wespe said:


> And because the US won, everything that contributed to WWII must off course be American or in the worst case British, otherwise how could they have won? And the best tank in WWII was the Sherman, because it influenced the Abrahms (they both have a cannon) and It contributed to winning the war.
> If every future discussion comes down to contribution (winning) towards the WWII, than what do you want to discuss about ?
> 
> The Ta 152 better than .......
> ...



Now you are just being silly. I dont know what to say to this either anymore. No one here has said that the Germans did not make great aircraft. They had some of the best aircraft of the war and in some cases the best aircraft in my opinion. 

We are talking about overall best aircraft here. Aircraft that accomplished them most. 

You are just letting pride get in the way. I too am born and raised in Germany but I give credit to where it is due when it comes to WW2 aviation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Heeeyyy,
> 
> did I say that I agree ? I said I do not know much about Transportplanes, so if you guys consider the adapting of a cockpit layout and a cargo door as influential to any modern transport a/c, well then I feel free to let you have your own opinion to that.
> 
> Wespe



What is your background in aviation, if you dont mind me asking you? Some of us here FBJ and myself including are liscensed and have experience in building and working on aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Hey great pictures,
> 
> so what is the difference between a Ju 90 cockpit and that of the C-130 ?
> I am sure you have a picture, if you don't mind please post it.


Actually I cant find the Ju 90, there's a C-130 below.

Into the war, all combatants started configuring cockpits like the DC-3. 2 man flight crew, radios behind the throttles or in the overheard, elevator trim wheel to the right of the pilot's seat and environmental controls in the over head as well. I've flown B737 full motion sims at United Air Lines training center and the set up is still similar as the DC-3/ C-47.

The C-130 cockpit is an older moder, I believe a G.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Lets go ahead and make this simple. Here is a question for you Wespe.

Not including what an aircraft influenced after the war. What aircraft do you consider using hard facts was the best aircraft of WW2 based on what it did in WW2. You have to account for performance, ease of maintenance and contribution to the war effort on any given side. Who cares about the winner of the war and even more so *what country made the aircraft.*


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No actually when you stated "Come on Guys it was just a transport" and basically implied that it could not have had the impact that it did on the whole war and could not have possibly been the best aircraft used in WW2 you started this...
> 
> Now if you wish to end it, prove us wrong.
> 
> ...



Okay, the Me-262 was crap and acctually could not do anything a prop plane in a similar mission and configuration could do especially not faster.
And the P80 would have kicked its ass because all modern jets derive from the P80.
proof me wrong


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

Ur wise @ss attitude is gonna get u in trouble pal... Watch ur mouth...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Okay, the Me-262 was crap and acctually could not do anything a prop plane in a similar mission and configuration could do especially not faster.
> And the P80 would have kicked its ass because all modern jets derive from the P80.
> proof me wrong



Now you are just being silly and making stupid comments. Stop changing the topic of the discussion.

No one has said the Me-262 was a piece of crap. It was a great fighter. It was plauged with problems with its engines and the metals used to make the aircraft were not wisely chosen (they did not have much of a choice though because of lack of raw materials near the end of the war). You do know what using disimiliar metals does correct?

The Me-262 was an innovative aircraft and was the best *jet* fighter to see service in the war.

However now you bring the P-80 into the picture. We dont know how the P-80 would have been in retrospect to the Me-262 because it did not see combat service. *So why bring it up?*. Since you did I personally think the Me-262 was a better design. The thing the P-80 had going for it was it had better engines that were more robust.

I also dont think the P-80 is what all modern jets were derived from. It did have one other thing that was better than the Me-262 though. That was its engine was in the fuselage which is more aerodynamic and how 90 percent of all jet fighter aircraft today are.

If you really want my opinion was influenced the most modern jets and that would the Messerschmitt P.1101 and the Focke Wulf Ta-183. They did not fly or see service in WW2 but they were tested by the allies afterwards and used as the basis for several fighters after the war.

Do me a favor though Wespe, stop acting like a child here and debate this like an adult.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Also you stated the Ju-90 had a cargo ramp. Where is this cargo ramp? I have not seen one yet. The Ju-90 was a tail dragger so where is it s ramp. If you are talking about a ramp that comes out the side, so what, the C-47 had the same as well. However the Ju-90 did not have a ramp that comes out the back.

Please correct me if I am missunderstanding you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Aha I have found the ramp on the Ju-90 you are talking about. Only one prototype was built with the ramp in late 1939 and it was cancelled.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Okay, the Me-262 was crap and acctually could not do anything a prop plane in a similar mission and configuration could do especially not faster.
> And the P80 would have kicked its ass because all modern jets derive from the P80.
> proof me wrong



The P-80 in its original form was a half notch up on the 262 for reliability and maintainability, if you were lucky. As we know one killed Dick Bong, Lockheed chief test pilot Milo Burcham and almost killed Tony Levier. It wasn't until the "C" was introduced where a reliable (and here's that word again) *safe* fighter was being produced.


----------



## Burador (Feb 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wrong again pal, if you read my earlier post you would find I have nothing but admiration for German WW2 aircraft which I know were superior to many allied birds.



These are your exact words about this German fighter: *"NO - although innovative, as a safe reliable combat aircraft it was crap."* All that was said about the 262 was its performance superiority over all Allied aircraft in combat, nothing about safety and reliability. With its performance it is indeed a superior fighter to any other in that war. And that is not crap. Also, my contention that Allied propaganda was constantly at play is correct. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Read my post again pal, there was a lot more than that which was needed to make it a safe reliable combat machine - it was too little too late. For a noob here I suggest you read several threads on get your facts straight about what some of the membership have said earlier in this thread, let a lone our backgrounds in aviation....



I don't have to, there are 36 pages in this thread and I don't want to go through your runarounds. Who do you think you are?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Burador said:


> I don't have to, there are 36 pages in this thread and I don't want to go through your runarounds. Who do you think you are?



He is a moderator in this forum. Who do you think you are?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Burador said:


> These are your exact words about this German fighter: *"NO - although innovative, as a safe reliable combat aircraft it was crap."* All that was said about the 262 was its performance superiority over all Allied aircraft in combat, nothing about safety and reliability. With its performance it is indeed a superior fighter to any other in that war. And that is not crap. Also, my contention that Allied propaganda was constantly at play is correct.


And I stand by my words - compared tro other German aircraft in quality and construction it WAS crap, at the same time it was one of the most innovative aircraft of the war




Burador said:


> I don't have to, there are 36 pages in this thread and I don't want to go through your runarounds. Who do you think you are?




*I’M AN A&P MECHANIC AND IA (IF YOU KNOW WHAT THAT EVEN IS) WHO HOLDS A COMMERCIAL PILOT’S CERTIFICATE AND I AM ALSO AN INSTRUMENT FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR. I’VE BEEN IN AVIATION FOR 29 YEARS AND HAVE WORKED ON (AS A MAINTAINER) EVERYTHING FROM CESSNA 150S TO DC-10S. I HAVE MAINTAINED AND FLOWN JETS (L-29, L-39, T-33S AND AN F-4) TO NAME A FEW AS WELL AS SINGLE ENGINE CESSNAS FROM THE 150 THROUGH THE C-210T. NOW I’LL TELL YOU WHAT I’M NOT – AN ARMCHAIR NOOBE WHO HAS MOST OF HIS FLIGHT TIME SITTING IN COACH EATING PEANUTS. I AM ALSO THE ONE THAT WILL BOUNCE YOUR SILLY @SS OFF THIS FORUM IN A NEW YORK MINUTE THE NEXT TIME YOU COME UP WITH A [email protected] REMARK – NOW I HOPE I HAVE MADE MYSELF PERFECTLY CLEAR!*


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Hey come on guy's 

it should be okay to voice an opinion in this forum right? nobody is saying that Flyboy woudn't know what he is talking about. So can we all including 
Burador cool down ?8) 


The below text says, that all three Ju 90 possesed the Trapo (Transport-klappe)-(Ramp)
Da alle drei Flugzeuge (Ju 90) über die so genannte Trapoklappe verfügten, konnten sie über diese auch kleinere Kraftfahrzeuge bis zum Schützenpanzer Sd.Kfz.222 oder 250 verladen und transportieren.
Somewhere maybe in the Junkers book there is a nice picture showing a Sd.Kfz.250 moving into the Ju 90.
On the inserted picture one can see this ramp quite clearly on a Ju 290. 

Regarding the “best plane” as I already forwarded to you it could also be a B-29, it just depends on what priorities or capabilities – contributions you personally set up.

As for the Me-262 I will still say that it was the best plane in WWII to me, not only due to the fact that almost every literature refers to it as the most known plane in WWII, but also to the facts that I have already stated several times, it marked a new era in aviation.
The missions it could fulfill are known to you just as well as to me, so I do not understand why you are demanding proof on something that you also know.

The Me-262 could perform as a Ground attack plane just as a Bf-109 but 200 km faster.
The Me-262 could perform as a fighter just as any other prop but 200 km faster
The Me-262 could perform as a nightfighter just as any other prop but 200 km faster
The Me-262 could perform as a reconnaissance plane just as any other prop but 200km faster.
And please don’t tell me now, no only 164km, or 137,5km, fact is that speed was more or less the only factor to guarantee survival and supremacy against overwhelming odds it would be “the” deciding factor for any plane, especially from German point of view. And more then 100km is a deciding factor and not if a FwD is 2 or 5 km faster then a P-51. That the reliability was not always given is known, but a Mustang or Tempest that has engine problems also wouldn’t be performing in any way.
The fact that it changed prop aviation in general to jet aviation is off larger historic proportions to me then the undisputed logistic contributions of a C-47.
And before the showing of the Me-262 or 163, especially the Americans where clinging on to piston planes, otherwise how would you explain 3 years of research ending up in a useless performance of a P 59.
That it did not contribute to a “change in history” is obvious nevertheless the above attributes make it to the best plane in WWII. If this opinion is not shared by others, well I wont die, cry or whatever.


----------



## Burador (Feb 18, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I stand by my words - compared tro other German aircraft in quality and construction it WAS crap, at the same time it was one of the most innovative aircraft of the war
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*I see that you're also a moderator besides being an etc., etc., etc., and throwing your weight around. That is not my concern and it doesn't faze me. I'm as old as you are, I have 2 kids in college, one in graduate school. So you don't yank me around like a child. OKAY?!*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Hey come on guy's
> 
> it should be okay to voice an opinion in this forum right? nobody is saying that Flyboy woudn't know what he is talking about. So can we all including
> Burador cool down ?8)


There is nothing wrong with your opinion, we appreciate something to back it up with. There are some moderators here however who won't tolerate "an armchair" coming on here talking sh*t. I'm not saying I'm god's gift to aviation but when a seemingly non-pilot (and judging by by Mr. Burador's response) or non maintainer attempts to tell someone who been there/ done that, not only does it piss us off, they will find themselves in a pissing contest they will not win.

Now.....



Wespe said:


> The below text says, that all three Ju 90 possesed the Trapo (Transport-klappe)-(Ramp)
> Da alle drei Flugzeuge (Ju 90) über die so genannte Trapoklappe verfügten, konnten sie über diese auch kleinere Kraftfahrzeuge bis zum Schützenpanzer Sd.Kfz.222 oder 250 verladen und transportieren.
> Somewhere maybe in the Junkers book there is a nice picture showing a Sd.Kfz.250 moving into the Ju 90.
> On the inserted picture one can see this ramp quite clearly on a Ju 290.
> ...


Good posts - the P-59 did not live up to what is should be - that's one of the reasons why Bell just about ceased to exist after WW2 as a capable aircraft manufacturer (the union also had a lot to do with it). But with that said, it was a start, just like the He 179 was Germany's first step and the same way the Gloster E 28/39 was to the UK - the US did have an advantage in that the UK gave us the engine technology but in essence it was a "first step.

BTW - the P-59 was used by the USAAF and USN for trainers and I think they stayed around until the late 40s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Burador said:


> *I see that you're also a moderator besides being an etc., etc., etc., and throwing your weight around. That is not my concern and it doesn't faze me. I'm as old as you are, I have 2 kids in college, one in graduate school. So you don't yank me around like a child. OKAY?!*



OK - say good bye to the weakest link.... I see you're too stupid to keep your mouth shut....

You must be proud of your kids - I hope they have their mother's brains.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Hey come on guy's
> 
> it should be okay to voice an opinion in this forum right?



Voicing an opinion is everyones right. To start throwing out an attitude with comments such as "Who do you think you are" is not the right thing to do in this forum. And that is for anyone to anyone.



Wespe said:


> The below text says, that all three Ju 90 possesed the Trapo (Transport-klappe)-(Ramp)
> Da alle drei Flugzeuge (Ju 90) über die so genannte Trapoklappe verfügten, konnten sie über diese auch kleinere Kraftfahrzeuge bis zum Schützenpanzer Sd.Kfz.222 oder 250 verladen und transportieren.
> Somewhere maybe in the Junkers book there is a nice picture showing a Sd.Kfz.250 moving into the Ju 90.
> On the inserted picture one can see this ramp quite clearly on a Ju 290.



Yeah I found that as well, when I went back to my books. 



Wespe said:


> The missions it could fulfill are known to you just as well as to me, so I do not understand why you are demanding proof on something that you also know.



Because you said it was the most versatile aircraft, which it was not. The most versatile aircraft can perform the most roles. The Me-262 could at best perform 4 to 5 roles. 

Aircraft such as the Ju-88, Mossie and B-25 could perform the same roles as the Me-262 plus a lot more, therefore were more versatile. Do you understand what I am saying now?



Wespe said:


> The fact that it changed prop aviation in general to jet aviation is off larger historic proportions to me then the undisputed logistic contributions of a C-47.



I disagree because this discussion is about the best aircraft of *"WW2"* not *"post WW2"*. Therefore it should be based off what the aircraft did in the immediate conflict. The C-47 had a larger historic role in that sense. I am not saying the C-47 was the best aircraft per say but it was the best aircraft in WW2 based off what it accomplished.



Wespe said:


> And before the showing of the Me-262 or 163, especially the Americans where clinging on to piston planes, otherwise how would you explain 3 years of research ending up in a useless performance of a P 59.



The P-59 led to the P-80 which was a decent jet fighter.

Besides the US and the rest of allies were not into building super weapons in that sense. They just wanted to win the war. How do you do that? You build stuff that is easy to build, easy to maintain. You mass produce it numbers that overwelm the enemy and you defeat them with those numbers.

Why put a big fraction of research and development into stuff that is going to take time to perfect when you can build lots of P-51s, B-17s, B-24s, Spitfires, Lancasters, P-47s and get the war over with.



Wespe said:


> That it did not contribute to a “change in history” is obvious nevertheless the above attributes make it to the best plane in WWII. If this opinion is not shared by others, well I wont die, cry or whatever.



No it did not change history, but lessons learned from it led to the P-80.

If you really want to be techincal the Me-262 did not change history either. The invention of the jet engine did, and as I stated above there were other German designs that influenced post war jet technology more than the Me-262.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Burador said:


> *I see that you're also a moderator besides being an etc., etc., etc., and throwing your weight around. That is not my concern and it doesn't faze me. I'm as old as you are, I have 2 kids in college, one in graduate school. So you don't yank me around like a child. OKAY?!*



You see that was on called for. You started the pissing match!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

Ooops I see he allready left us...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ooops I see he allready left us...


Yep - another meatball....


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Hi Flyboy,

maybe you got some info for me on the following.

Many sources state that the P59 was not send to Europe during WWII. However I remember having seen a colour photo showing P59 in Italy, stating that they arrived 2 weeks before the war ended.
True or do I mix up something ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Hi Flyboy,
> 
> maybe you got some info for me on the following.
> 
> ...


I think I know the photo you're talking about - I've been told it was a fake (it's real location was Wright Patterson). I don't have anything in my archives maybe one of the other members can come up with something.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

It was the P-80 that arrived in Italy at the end of the war not the P-59. The P-80s were flying CAPs there but did not see any combat. It wainly a show of force to say "Hey we got a jet too!".


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 18, 2007)

Why wasnt the Fw 187 put to better use? it was a better box of tricks than the 210 and left the 110 in the dust, looking for plans for a 187 by the way for model construction if anyone knows where I can find them.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It was the P-80 that arrived in Italy at the end of the war not the P-59. The P-80s were flying CAPs there but did not see any combat. It wainly a show of force to say "Hey we got a jet too!".



Nope, that photo I am refering to showed P-59s. And without opening another discussion for today, please refer to the text below.

The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star became the United State's Air Force's first jet-powered fighter on December 3, 1945. Shortly before the Second World War ended, about 45 had been delivered though only two made it to the European Theater and neither ever saw any combat.

It is 0730 in Asia now and I really need to go to sleep.
See you next time - I mean contra you next time


----------



## Civettone (Feb 18, 2007)

One P-59 was given to the British in exchange for a Meteor. So 1 Aerocomet did end up in Europe.

As to the Fw 187, I'm sure there have been several discussions concerning this great aircraft before. So I'll keep it short: the Fw 187 did not fit into the requirements of the Luftwaffe, as it was a private project of the Fw company. The RLM did not see enough reason to stop production of either the Bf 109 or the Bf 110 for the Falke as it could not replace any of these with full satisfaction. For instance, the Fw 187 did not have a rear gunner which was thought to be essential for the Zerstörer the Germans were after. When Tank installed one, it was considered to be inadequate. Furthermore, the Bf 110 was considered "good enough" to continue production, also because there was no war in sight.
The He 100 is a similar story btw, nothing to do with politics, just rationally thinking about production numbers.

Kris


----------



## mkloby (Feb 19, 2007)

Wespe said:


> You don't get it do you? "the most influential in the role it played in WWII" did I ever state that the C-47 did NOT PLAY AN INFLUENTIAL ROLE IN LOGISTICS????
> 
> You try to show me your knowledge about the inventory about the USAF or what?
> It is obvious to me, that todays modern and desisive fighter aircraft are jet propelled and not props. No matter if the Argentinians are producing Pampas (cant remember the dam name right now) and Brazilians Tucanos.
> ...



Wespe - you stated that the me262 drove props into history. I gave you a short list of current US aircraft in the inventory that are props. Of those listed, only the T-6 and C-130s are currently used by the USAF. My current aircraft, the C-12, is in a navy squadron. There is also currently a push in the USAF to procure armored AT-6 Texan IIs to use for light attack/recon. Props are far from fading into history.

It just comes down to what "best" means to each person. Maybe you'd be surprised to know that my favorite A/C is the Bf109F-4. No one is chest thumping by saying the 47 was the best. Regardless - it's a good discussion, tempers just always seem to flare in these "best" threads.

Cheers,
matt


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2007)

When'ever it worked the Me-262 was the best fighter to hit the air during WWII, and besides its engine troubles (Which were significant) it was actually a very sound fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> When'ever it worked the Me-262 was the best fighter to hit the air during WWII, and besides its engine troubles (Which were significant) it was actually a very sound fighter.


Agree - my point here was the early jet aircraft were unrelaible and sometime dangerous. Becuase of the wartime urgency the Me 262 utilized material and contruction techniques that were somewhat crude.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Nope, that photo I am refering to showed P-59s. And without opening another discussion for today, please refer to the text below.
> 
> The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star became the United State's Air Force's first jet-powered fighter on December 3, 1945. Shortly before the Second World War ended, about 45 had been delivered though only two made it to the European Theater and neither ever saw any combat.
> 
> ...



If the photo was the aircraft in Italy near the end of the war than it was P-80s not P-59s. *It was labeled wrong then.* As stated below one P-59 was sent to England so the British could test it. It was not put on operational sorties.

2 P-80s however arrived in Italy and were put on Combat Air Patrol mission but never enganed any German aircraft.

Also the P-380 did not become the US first operational Jet Fighter on December 3, 1945. It was in late 1944 that they began to be given to units.

Here is some info for you below.

*The only P-59 to go England was YP-59A (S/n: 42-22611) and exchanged for a Gloster Meteor.*

*A total of 4 P-80s were sent to Europe in January of 1945. 2 to England and 2 to Italy. The unit in Italy that recieved them was the 1st Fighter Group based out of Lesina, Italy.

Major Frederic Borsodi was killed in a crash caused by an engine fire on 28 January 1945, demonstrating YP-80A 44-83026 at RAF Burtonwood.

Because of this the P-80 was grounded. Because of this delay they did not see any combat.*

*1st Fighter Group received two YP-80A jet fighters (serials 44-83028 and 44-83029) sent to the theater for operational testing ("Project Extraversion"). Although the jets were marked for combat operations with easily identifiable tail stripes and the letters 'A' and 'B' on their noses, and flown on two operational sorties by the 94th FS, neither saw combat before the end of the war.
*


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 19, 2007)

Yes, there were 2 P80 in Italy, based in Lesina close to Foggia.
There was some speculation that they were sent to counter the 'Pamperos' (nickname given to the AR234) based in Lonate Pozzolo, but it does not seem realistic: Foggia is in the deep south, the YP80 were almost at the end of their range before reaching the area where the few remaining Germans were flying.

Most likely they were sent only for test and 'advertising' purposes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

They were sent for Combat Air Patrols for operational testing. They never saw combat. 

No P-59s were sent to Europe for operations purposes. Therefore the photo is labeled wrong or it is the on the RAF were testing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2007)

Sometimes ya gotta love Winkpedia..

*"The 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than its predecessor, but the improvement in performance was negligible with only a five mph increase in top speed. One of these aircraft, third YP-59A (S/n: 42-22611) was supplied to the RAF in exchange for a Gloster Meteor. British pilots found that the aircraft compared very unfavourably with the locally-produced jets that they were already flying. (They also compared unfavorably to P-51 Mustangs.) Two YP-59A Airacomets (42-108778 and 42-100779) were also delivered to the USN where they were evaluated as the YF2L-1 but quickly found completely unsuitable for carrier operations.

Faced with their own ongoing difficulties, eventually, Bell completed 50 production Airacomets-20 P-59As and 30 P-59Bs. Each was armed with one 37-mm M-4 cannon and 44 rounds of ammunition and three .50 cal. machine guns and 200 rounds per gun. The P-59Bs were assigned to the 412th Fighter Group to familiarize AAF pilots with the handling and performance characteristics of jet aircraft. While the P-59 was not a great success, the type did give the USAAF experience with the operation of jet aircraft in preparation for the more advanced types that would shortly become available."*


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree - my point here was the early jet aircraft were unrelaible and sometime dangerous. Becuase of the wartime urgency the Me 262 utilized material and contruction techniques that were somewhat crude.



The problem was not the airframe, the airframe was strong and well built (Unless sabotaged), the engines however were too ahead of their time, the heat levels reached were simply to much for the materials available at the time.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> The problem was not the airframe, the airframe was strong and well built (Unless sabotaged), the engines however were too ahead of their time, the heat levels reached were simply to much for the materials available at the time.



Hi Soren,

the whole time when I looked at your signature pic. I felt hat something was wrong. Yep now I know it is the pilot Willi Reschkes uniform. Did you mirror the picture deliberatly?

Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sometimes ya gotta love Winkpedia..
> 
> *"The 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than its predecessor, but the improvement in performance was negligible with only a five mph increase in top speed. One of these aircraft, third YP-59A (S/n: 42-22611) was supplied to the RAF in exchange for a Gloster Meteor. British pilots found that the aircraft compared very unfavourably with the locally-produced jets that they were already flying. (They also compared unfavorably to P-51 Mustangs.) Two YP-59A Airacomets (42-108778 and 42-100779) were also delivered to the USN where they were evaluated as the YF2L-1 but quickly found completely unsuitable for carrier operations.
> 
> Faced with their own ongoing difficulties, eventually, Bell completed 50 production Airacomets-20 P-59As and 30 P-59Bs. Each was armed with one 37-mm M-4 cannon and 44 rounds of ammunition and three .50 cal. machine guns and 200 rounds per gun. The P-59Bs were assigned to the 412th Fighter Group to familiarize AAF pilots with the handling and performance characteristics of jet aircraft. While the P-59 was not a great success, the type did give the USAAF experience with the operation of jet aircraft in preparation for the more advanced types that would shortly become available."*



Yeap just like I said.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> The problem was not the airframe, the airframe was strong and well built (Unless sabotaged), the engines however were too ahead of their time, the heat levels reached were simply to much for the materials available at the time.


The airframe was built well - it was the components that went into it that made the aircraft a "rust bucket." In the Walter J. Boyne's book "Arrow to the Future" he has a chapter where the restoration of the Me 262 that is now in the Smithsonian Institute is described. There were many areas of the aircraft were steel and aluminum (among other materials) were used togther in main structural components with little or no protection - in that situation corrosion would set in almost immediately. It is understandable why this was done during but at the same time I think some of these "rushed processes" would of shown their head had the aircraft seen another 6 months more of service.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 20, 2007)

How many a/c actually are around after 6 months of service?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> How many a/c actually are around after 6 months of service?



I guess it depends what side you're on.  Even though many of the aircraft used in WW2 were never thought to have a life expectancy of more than a few hundred hours, there is no reason to build them that way unless you're pretty desperate. The point here is as effective an innovative the Me 262 was, its faults lied in it's construction and engines - but that aside, when everything was working, she was unstoppable.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I guess it depends what side you're on.  Even though many of the aircraft used in WW2 were never thought to have a life expectancy of more than a few hundred hours, there is no reason to build them that way unless you're pretty desperate. The point here is as effective an innovative the Me 262 was, its faults lied in it's construction and engines - but that aside, when everything was working, she was unstoppable.



YES,YES,YES

"when everything was working, she was unstoppable "

Thank you I needed that

Wespe


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 20, 2007)

It is difficult to have a firm opinion on the 262, we are lacking reliable information about her effectiveness.

Trying to roughly summarize, to my knowledge we can say:

Things that we can accept as facts

1 - The performances were extremely good
2 - the tactical and strategical situation was desperate: no fuel, outnumbered 10/20: 1 at every combat etc.
3 - the airframe was OK, 
4 - the engines were troublesome

About the actual results, there are not (to my knowledge) reliable information:

Me 262 downed: it seems that a meaningful number is around 150, not clear if this include those aircrafts strafed on the ground or only the airborne.
For sure it does include aircrafts shoot down during take off and landing.


Me 262 kills: here goes the dance.
According to Osprey the kills were:

Eprobungskommando 262 ------------ 12
Kampfgeswafer 51 "Edelweiss" ----- 8+
Kommando Nowotny ----------------- 22
III./EJ 2 ------------------------ 40
Jagdegeswader 7 ------------------ 500
Kommando Welter (10.NJG 11) ------ 48
Jagdverband 44 ------------------- 55+
Kampfgeswader 54 "Totenkompf" ---- 50

that is about 735

Now, this seems too much, they are probably claims.

On the other end, there are sources ( I can't remember now) that report a total of 180-200 kills.


In any case we should come to some reliable number of kills to make an opinion about the 262 as 'best' or 'useless' fighter:

Taking (as pure exercise) 150 as the number of 262 downed, 
- considering the 'fact' #2 and 
- that a good half of the losses happened during take off/landing and not in combat 

we might have:

Kills = 150-200 -> good, 
But probably not worth the cost of such a sophisticated machine

Kills = 200-300 -> Extremely good,
no other aircraft could possibly have achieved this results

Kills = 300-400 -> Impressive, 
almost terrifying

Kills > 400 : the 262 was in effect another planet, not a plane!


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

I wouldn't know about Osprey, but if you check the following page for Jet fighter kills (Duesenjaeger) you will come up with about 400 kills + since this page only shows pilots with kills 5 and above.

Düsenjägers - Jet Aces of The Luftwaffe

So the Me-262 was either impressive or as you say from another planet. So I will stick to impressive because if I would refer it to being from another planet then Adler is going to have a reason to ban it from WWII  

Wespe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I guess it depends what side you're on.  Even though many of the aircraft used in WW2 were never thought to have a life expectancy of more than a few hundred hours, there is no reason to build them that way unless you're pretty desperate. The point here is as effective an innovative the Me 262 was, its faults lied in it's construction and engines - but that aside, when everything was working, she was unstoppable.





Wespe said:


> YES,YES,YES
> 
> "when everything was working, she was unstoppable "
> 
> ...




That's good 

Now with all that said, I think it's clear why the Me 262 cannot be considered for the "Best Aircraft of WW2." Certainly the most innovative but there's a bigger picture to consider when there is more to flying than trying to shoot down another aircraft - I know its hard to put the testosterone in check but we all have to do it at one time or another.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

The world according to Wespe:

Q: What is the best fighter of WW2?
*Wespe: Me-262!!!!*

Q: What is the best bomber of WW2?
*Wespe: Me-262!!!!*

Q: What is the best Seaplane of WW2?
*Wespe: Me-262!!!!*

(Wespe is drooling by now....)

Q: What is the best Submarine of WW2?
*Wespe: Me-262!!!!*

Q: Who was the best leader of WW2?
*Wespe: OOOHHH OOHHH That is easy! Me-262!!!!*

Q: What is the only plain that had no faults at all?
*Wespe: Besides every aircraft the Luftwaffe had, Certainly the Me-262!!!!*

(Wespe has nearly wet himself now....)

Q: What was the best sex of your life?
*Wespe: Me-262!!!! Damn was she hot!!!!*


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 20, 2007)

Yes we get all kinds here and they all come with their bias opinions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

You replace the Me-262 with the P-51D or P-38 and you have syscom. You replace the Me-262 with the Lancaster and you have Lanc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You replace the Me-262 with the P-51D or P-38 and you have syscom. You replace the Me-262 with the Lancaster and you have Lanc.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The world according to Wespe:
> 
> Q: What is the best fighter of WW2?
> *Wespe: Me-262!!!!*
> ...




YEAH,YEAH, oh my god dont stop now


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

It is true my friend. Congratulations in just 80 posts you have reached the status of Lanc and Syscom3.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The world according to Wespe:
> 
> Q: What is the best fighter of WW2?
> *Wespe: Me-262!!!!*
> ...


  :BIG:


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is true my friend. Congratulations in just 80 posts you have reached the status of Lanc and Syscom3.


What's Syscom3's fetish then???


Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Anything built by the United States.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You replace the Me-262 with the P-51D or P-38 and you have syscom. You replace the Me-262 with the Lancaster and you have Lanc.



How true how true.


See above Civettone.


----------



## renrich (Mar 6, 2007)

If by the best aircraft of WW2 you are talking about the most effective or deadliest, my vote would go to the various models of the BF109. Surely it must have been responsible for more air to air kills and more deaths of enemy combatants than any other aircraft in history.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2007)

All functions considered, nothing touches the C-47....


----------



## evangilder (Mar 6, 2007)

I'm with Joe on this. The C-47 s also one of the best airplanes _ever _made, in my opinion.


----------



## trackend (Mar 6, 2007)

Here here guys Dak everytime for me too


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2007)

C-47 as well. 

I am going to stop saying this as well...


----------



## Henk (Mar 7, 2007)

Sh*t is this still going on? I thought most of the people have noticed by now the best aircraft of WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 7, 2007)

Henk said:


> Sh*t is this still going on? I thought most of the people have noticed by now the best aircraft of WW2.



I know - It seems they think the only aircraft type that flew during WW2 were fighters, probably due too much testosterone clouding their judgment.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2007)

> You replace the Me-262 with the P-51D or P-38 and you have syscom. You replace the Me-262 with the Lancaster and you have Lanc.



very true


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 10, 2007)

I bet my LIFE that a Zero could outrun and shoot down a P-40.The Zero had a faster climb rate,better firepower,and higher speed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 10, 2007)

P-40's did infact shoot down Zeros, and Zeros shot down P-40's.... Whats ur point???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> I bet my LIFE that a Zero could outrun and shoot down a P-40.The Zero had a faster climb rate,better firepower,and higher speed.


Kid, I'm going to put it lightly - you need to read some more posts here, do some more research and really study aircraft and WW2, in other words you need to pull your head out of your @ss..


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 10, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> I bet my LIFE that a Zero could outrun and shoot down a P-40.



Bullsh*t! where's your proof?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> I bet my LIFE that a Zero could outrun and shoot down a P-40.



Tell that to this guy


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

This place is really starting to get funny lately! :lol


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 11, 2007)

That is what you get when 11 year olds fill the forum... (just read his profile)


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

ZEROS RULE!!!!!DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

I seriously DO study ww2 aircraft!Studying them for 6 years!And I know for a FACT that Zeros do kick @$$!

lol


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2007)

Dont triple post anymore.. I combined all 3 of ur posts and look what it amounted to.... If ur 11 years old, u started studying them when u were 5???

Zeros did kick @ss, for the first year and a half or so of the War, against the untrained and poorly armed... Then tactics and better Allied aircraft evened the score.... The Zero was a dogfighter at lower speeds.... Higher speeds rendered the Zeros attributes moot....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> ZEROS RULE!!!!!DEAL WITH IT!!!!!







ohka345 said:


> I seriously DO study ww2 aircraft!Studying them for 6 years!And I know for a FACT that Zeros do kick @$$!
> 
> lol


----------



## Erich (Mar 11, 2007)

did someone post that this guy was only 11 yrs old in his profile......... ?

my gosh we are having a argument with a child ! Hey kiddo no disrespect but go through some of the archived materials-threads and read and learn. The Japanese AF was a tour de waste


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Also I would like you to explain how the Zero was better than the P-38, P-51, Fw-190A, Fw-190D, Spitfire, Typhoon and P-47s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> ZEROS RULE!!!!!DEAL WITH IT!!!!!
> 
> I seriously DO study ww2 aircraft!Studying them for 6 years!And I know for a FACT that Zeros do kick @$$!
> 
> lol




Take a good look kid...







As it was stated, Zeros DID rule for a short period. BTW some of us have spent more time on the toilet then you been born so we know a little more than you. Listen to Les, don't triple post and read some of the data you might lean something...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW some of us have spent more time on the toilet then you been born so we know a little more than you.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

Where is that picture?I like ww2 aircraft wrecks too...American OR Japanese!
P.S.I wrote a report on the Zero last month.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> Where is that picture?I like ww2 aircraft wrecks too...American OR Japanese!
> P.S.I wrote a report on the Zero last month.


Kid, Zero wrecks are all over the pacific - do a google search and you'll find tons of them...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> Where is that picture?I like ww2 aircraft wrecks too...American OR Japanese!
> P.S.I wrote a report on the Zero last month.



I hope you did not put in your school report that the Zero was the best fighter of WW2.

Liking something the best and being the best are 2 different things. My favorite is the Bf-109G but you will never see me kidding myself saying that it was the best fighter of WW2.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

At school,I DIDN'T say it was the best of all,but I said it was the best Japanese fighter!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2007)

The best Japanese fighter wasnt the Zero either...


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

Then what was it?


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 11, 2007)

Ki-84 or perhaps the Ki-100 imo...


----------



## mkloby (Mar 12, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> At school,I DIDN'T say it was the best of all,but I said it was the best Japanese fighter!



The A6M2 was a very capable warbird when it first hit the fleet. However, it was slow straight and level, and could be outdove by almost anything else in the air. Later models, like the A6M5 attempted to rectify this, and sharply diminished her greatest attitribute - maneuverability.

Most influential Japanese fighter - yes, I'll give you that.

Best Japanese fighter, no way. There were several very capable designs that took to the sky, but Japanese industry wasn't able to meet the task. The Ki-84, mentioned by Gnomey, was a much more capable design.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 12, 2007)

He's got spunk! Stubborn. But has spunk.


----------



## daishi12 (Mar 13, 2007)

Hi guys, just a quick comment in favour of Okha. He is a young member and as such he has not had the time to research every single WW2 aircraft make and model as you have.

Please cut Okha a little slack and try to encourage the younger members of the site so that they can give a valued contribution to WW2aircraft forums.

I would say that the "Zeke" was a very capable aircraft in the PTO but it did not have the publicity of the "Zero" and as such could be in the running for the sixth or seventh place for best aircraft of WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2007)

daishi12 said:


> Hi guys, just a quick comment in favour of Okha. He is a young member and as such he has not had the time to research every single WW2 aircraft make and model as you have.
> 
> Please cut Okha a little slack and try to encourage the younger members of the site so that they can give a valued contribution to WW2aircraft forums.
> 
> I would say that the "Zeke" was a very capable aircraft in the PTO but it did not have the publicity of the "Zero" and as such could be in the running for the sixth or seventh place for best aircraft of WW2.



We have always encouraged younger members and are more than willing to educate - when they come on here and act like knuckleheads is when we may push them around a little...

With that said - Zeke - Zero? The Zeke was an A6M5, the last model of the A6M (Type O model 52 to be exact) - It's was the same aircraft! Oh and by the way, still shot down in numerous quantities...


----------



## daishi12 (Mar 13, 2007)

Sorry Flyboy. I stand corrected, I will admit that I am slightly drunk at the moment and as such I am not as fully conversant with the facts as I should be. 

Please accept that everybody has a right to express their opinion as to which aircraft, in their opinion, was the best of WW2. For example Adler with the 109, Lanc with the Lanc, yourself with anything American 


Cheers, Nick


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2007)

daishi12 said:


> Sorry Flyboy. I stand corrected, I will admit that I am slightly drunk at the moment and as such I am not as fully conversant with the facts as I should be.


No problem - have a pint for me!


daishi12 said:


> Please accept that everybody has a right to express their opinion as to which aircraft, in their opinion, was the best of WW2. For example Adler with the 109, Lanc with the Lanc, yourself with anything American
> 
> 
> Cheers, Nick


Totally understand and we always respect the opinions of others as we all know the Best Aircraft of WW2 is the C-47.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 14, 2007)

And we all no, daishi, that FBJ is so shallow in intellect as to never recognize an aircraft's performance and positive qualities based upon anything other than US origin.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> And we all no, daishi, that FBJ is so shallow in intellect as to never recognize an aircraft's performance and positive qualities based upon anything other than US origin.


----------



## MAV_406 (Mar 15, 2007)

Fighters and bomers wear just the spear head the transports and trainers were the handle. you cant get to a opponent with just a spear head? thats why i say C-47


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2007)

And that is what the majority of us have been saying as well.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 17, 2007)

I've never researched all the ww2 aircraft,but I've seen pictures of most of them. Like the Sunderland?Huge,has depth charges,white paint job?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 17, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> I've never researched all the ww2 aircraft,but I've seen pictures of most of them. Like the Sunderland?Huge,has depth charges,white paint job?


Ohka you live about 35miles to a nice collection of aircraft In Hamilton they have only the 2nd flying Lancaster Bomber in the world a Pby Catalina a Lysander that will be making its first flight this summer as soon as the paperwork from overseas catches up and are also restoring a Bolingbroke also called a Blenheim . Which is welll along although the pic doesn't indicate that. Its called the canadian Warbird heritage


----------



## daishi12 (Mar 18, 2007)

I have actualy been on board a civilian version of the Short Sunderland, (which I believe was called the Hythe) and I have to say that the level of opulance was something else to behold. It was a massive aircraft and I am suprised that any of them were able to get airborne from the water.

The Hythe was housed in the Southampton (UK) aircraft museum, but unfortunately the museum has (I think) gone bust. I do not know what happened to the exhibits.


----------



## Ajax (Mar 21, 2007)

Ok, that's alot of thread to read, so before anyone jumps in with _another_ outrageous claim about how some measly fighter won the war, here is the thread so far, very, very, very breifly...

1. Everyone with any knowlege of WWII planes generally agrees that the C-47 Medium Transport was the most influential, decisive and thus best plane in WWII.

2. It did many other jobs other than troop transport; troop carrying, general airline, parachute drops, glider tug, e.t.c.

3. It is the most used plane of WWII today, and shaped many modern plane construction methods.

4. There is much more to winning a war than combat. Medical, Ammo, Information, Recon, Morale...

5. The jet engine was still being born during even the latter stages of WWII, and so is not deemed influential enough to allow a jet fighter to be crowned 'the best'.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

Very well said, but everyone has there own opinions to the subject. Having said that the C-47 was the best.


----------



## Ajax (Mar 22, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Very well said, but everyone has there own opinions to the subject. Having said that the C-47 was the best.



Stop messing with words... that can confuse people (me)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2007)

Messing with words?


----------



## bryce (Apr 13, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Im with FBJ. For fighter I go with the Fw-190D.




To DerAdlerIstGelandet, can I ask why you rate the FW-190D as the best fighter ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2007)

I like its combination of performance, maneuverability, and its looks. I think it is a very underated fighter. It was not the best in all areas but it was very good in all and therefore I rank it as the best *fighter* in my opinion. Not my favorite but the best in my opinion.

Having said that the Best *Aircraft of WW2* was the C-47.


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 13, 2007)

Hey Adler, just a quick question: what was in your opinion the best aircraft of WW2?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 13, 2007)

I think it might be the C-47????


----------



## machine shop tom (Apr 13, 2007)

Perhaps the question of the best WWII aircraft would be best broken down into different categories? And maybe years? I think there are too many variables and differences in roles to pin the best award to any one plane.

tom


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2007)

machine shop tom said:


> Perhaps the question of the best WWII aircraft would be best broken down into different categories? And maybe years? I think there are too many variables and differences in roles to pin the best award to any one plane.
> 
> tom


Been there done that...

C-47 takes it...


----------



## machine shop tom (Apr 15, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Been there done that...
> 
> C-47 takes it...



Yep. I posted that before I wandered into the other "best _______ " threads.

Sorry.

tom


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 15, 2007)

Tom, if I could, take the time and read around the board some, see whats been discussed... Theres alot of info in this here site... U'd be amazed...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2007)

machine shop tom said:


> Yep. I posted that before I wandered into the other "best _______ " threads.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> tom




No problem..


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2007)

I would say the C-47 was the most Important. 

Then the 262 the Best of the Revolutionary and the B-29 the Best of the Evolutionary aircraft of WWII.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I would say the C-47 was the most Important.
> 
> Then the 262 the Best of the Revolutionary and the B-29 the Best of the Evolutionary aircraft of WWII.


Well put....

As stated earlier, there's a lot more to military aviation than shooting down other aircraft and dropping bombs....


----------



## modelbuilder (Jun 2, 2007)

Everybody's got their favorites, but my vote goes to the P-38.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2007)

If you read most of the thread, this has nothing to do with favorites. My favorite WW2 aircraft is the P-38 as well but it was not the best all-round aircraft...


----------



## mkloby (Jun 2, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you read most of the thread, this has nothing to do with favorites. My favorite WW2 aircraft is the P-38 as well but it was not the best all-round aircraft...



Well everybody knows that the best WWII A/C is clearly the Ta-152  I was inside one of Cavanaugh's C-47s at the airshow we had at Corpus - I couldn't believe the incline from the tail to the cockpit because of the tailwheel!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I was inside one of Cavanaugh's C-47s at the airshow we had at Corpus - I couldn't believe the incline from the tail to the cockpit because of the tailwheel!


We had one way back when i was in A&P school. After a day working on that thing you were walking around at a 30 degree list.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 4, 2007)

C-47 all the way baby! That is about the 100th time Ive said that!  I dont think I will say it again.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 4, 2007)

Back in the 80's we sent a C47 down to Peterson AFB I believe and it broke down but they got spare bits needed from the one in a museum there very humbling


----------



## renrich (Jul 6, 2007)

One of the best ac of ww2 is here today, July 6, tomorrow and Sunday, Sentimental Journey, a B17. I saw her twice today flying over and her engines sounded really sweet. What a sight. May go out tomorrow and walk through her.


----------



## renrich (Jul 7, 2007)

Went out this morning to the B17 and was asked to help pull through the props to clear the bottom cylinders so of course did it and was a thrill. Watched as they cranked up 3 then 4 then 1 and 2. What a sound and then they taxied out and took off.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 7, 2007)

Nothing more beautiful than a "Fort".


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jul 13, 2007)

my first post so excuse me if i sound dumb
firstly i don't agree with any of these 
because the "best" plane would or could be catorgerised to have done the most to win the war which opens the door to a number of aircraft
1 the P51 mustang i disagree with americans on many points but the p51 was a work of art
2 the Mosquito i don't think this aircraft had an equal in reguards of versitility 
though that could be argued as well. In short there is so many criteria the "best plane" would have to fill that i don't think there is any overall answer personally my favourite plane is the Hawker Tempest


----------



## lastwarrior (Jul 13, 2007)

I'll vote for the F4F Wildcat


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 15, 2007)

It aint about goddamn favorite, its BEST...


----------



## The Basket (Jul 15, 2007)

The Douglas Dakota or C-47 was maybe the best .

Have to go with the Mosquito. Could do so many roles and was brilliant in each one. British too.


----------



## Watanbe (Jul 16, 2007)

In my opinion the best plane in the was without any shadow of a doubt the CAC Boomerang. 

Please dont ask me to justify my decision because I cant hahaha, except maybe that it proved to be a successful close support aircraft. 

This opinion is obviosuly biased and based on little fact  

Ok same maybe it wasnt the best plane of WW2, perhaps it was the C-47, as Churchill said,

“Victory is the beautiful brightly coloured flower. Transport is the stem, without which it could have never have blossomed.”


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 25, 2007)

The Boomerang was possibly the best intrim measure of all time.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 26, 2007)

My definition of "The Best" is the one with the most profound impact demonstrated through a long life span. The aircraft that would be the most missed if it never was...

The bombing raids would have been in trouble w/o the long range P-51.. but they could have adjusted.

England may have fallen w/o the Spit or Hurricane but the war would have continued.

The IL-2 slaughtered tanks by the score. The Germans would have more success and maybe prolonged the war but the end result wouldn't have changed.

If the ME-109 never was, the FW-190 (although more expensive to produce) could have stepped up... and vice versa.

The only plane I can think of that was entirely irreplaceable was th C-47!
No doubt... she was the best... ground all the C-47s for 6 months at anytime during the war and see what happens.

Gooney Bird ROCKS!!!

B-29 is second... w/o it's range the war would have been prolonged... no doubt! Unfortunately her service record was comparatively short.



1941 Historical Aircraft Group Museum

,


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> The only plane I can think of that was entirely irreplaceable was th C-47!
> No doubt... she was the best... ground all the C-47s for 6 months at anytime during the war and see what happens.
> 
> Gooney Bird ROCKS!!!
> ...



Amen and I completely agree with you brother!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2007)

Just build and use C-46s instead...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2007)

Yeah but we are talking about actual and the C-47 was the main transport for the allies.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2007)

Of course, I'm not going to take anything away from the C-47. However, I will add that the C-46 could have been the main transport of the Allies and on paper it was a superior design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2007)

You are very correct my friend.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2007)

But history is history, and I will agree that the C-47 'Skytrain' takes the crown. It was the best for its ability to do the job it was designed to do, without fault.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2007)

The C-54 was also comparable, though still not as good on paper as the C-46. Of course, one of the biggest drawbacks is that these planes weren't available in nearly as many numbers as the C-47.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 26, 2007)

This should be the best combat aircraft of WW2?

Because arguably the C47 was the best plane of all time!!!!

Best Combat aircraft of WW2 maybe Mosquito...variety of roles which it performed excellently!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

Agree! The Mosquito is the second highest ranking in the 2-engine fighters poll. (second to the P-38 ). Overall I'd have to say these two craft are both great, each having advantages over the other.

And as said a few C-47s still flying in an active cargo transport roll. As is the C-46.


----------



## the su-47 is gangsta (Nov 3, 2007)

the horten 229 was most adcanced


----------



## Neto (Nov 3, 2007)

many people in this thread put the c 47 on the top... it is a nice airplane yes, but i do not conform that a cargo airplane may be the best ww2 aircraft  .
I think that a attack or defensive aircraft may be the best choice.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 3, 2007)

And u would be thinking incorrectly...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 3, 2007)

In my opinion, the greatest the aircraft is the aircraft that does it's job better than all the rest - no matter it's type. Since you cannot compare a transport to a fighter ,this is the only logical way of going about things.


----------



## Neto (Nov 3, 2007)

plan_D said:


> In my opinion, the greatest the aircraft is the aircraft that does it's job better than all the rest - no matter it's type. Since you cannot compare a transport to a fighter ,this is the only logical way of going about things.



yes you are right with your personal view. Dakota do it's job very good...but in my opinion,there is other airplanes(attack/denfense)tha may it's job very well


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

Neto said:


> yes you are right with your personal view. Dakota do it's job very good...but in my opinion,there is other airplanes(attack/denfense)tha may it's job very well


But did they have the technical and operational impact of the C-47? I would venture to say no, no matter what type of other aircraft is compared. The C-47 was the benchmark for military cargo and civilian aircraft that is still cast in stone almost 70 years after its first flight. Not only was the C-47 the greatest aircraft of WW2 but probably the greatest aircraft of all-time.


----------



## DBII (Nov 3, 2007)

Well said Flyboy. The C47 has done everything: cargo, troop transport, towed gliders, airborne assults and medivac. The Russins even strapped on bombs for night raids. The C47s were later used as gunships. They flew over the Hump, air lifted supplies to cut off units and saved Berlin. The C47s were everywhere and did everything. 

DBII


----------



## plan_D (Nov 3, 2007)

They didn't do everything...but that's irrelevant. Neto, you seem to miss the idea - the C-47's design achieved what it was supposed to do without need of improvement. All the 'attack/defence' aircraft were constantly changing through the war; the Spitfire (for example) did not do its job good enough to be left alone , it went from Mark I to Mark 21 by the wars end (And Mk.24 by the end of its career.) 

The C-47 was only made obselete by the introduction of the gas turbine engine; when the likes of the C-130 took the biscuit. And then the C-130 has been put on the backseat by the C-18 which has been created through (genius) modern science and engineering. 

No fighter or bomber of World War II did the job they were designed to as well as the C-47 did theirs.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 3, 2007)

And c-47s are STILL hauling cargo today in some places in the world!


----------



## Neto (Nov 3, 2007)

ok i shut up lool.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 3, 2007)

I know I only mentioned this a few posts ago, but in my eyes the only reason the C-46 doesn't take the crown is because it didn't put as much toward the war effort as the C-47. 

I assume the C-47 was easier to build so the U.S took it over the C-46.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

Neto said:


> many people in this thread put the c 47 on the top... it is a nice airplane yes, but i do not conform that a cargo airplane may be the best ww2 aircraft  .
> I think that a attack or defensive aircraft may be the best choice.



Yeah but there is more to fighting a war than throwing bullets and dropping bombs. This thread is about the contribution to the war. The C-47 flew in supplies to the ground troops that could not fight the war without it.

The C-47 was the allied work horse and it is still in use today.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 4, 2007)

The C-46 also came out a bit after the C-47. The C-46 got heavy use in the CBI, flying the hump. It could actually get to altitude while fully loaded faster than the C-47. The C-46 was used a couple of times in Europe, like in operation varsity, but for the most part, the C-47 handled most of the cargo duties in Europe. I have seen them side by side, and the C-46 is considerably bigger.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 7, 2007)

Here's an interesting candidate:

The Savoia Marchetti SM.82. 





Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2007)

Explain how that aircraft could contend for being the best.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 8, 2007)

Well let me say first that I NEVER consider an aircraft bad or good because of what it actually performed. Remember the discussion about best carrier attack aircraft and me voting for the Fieseler Fi 167 even though it never proved itself.

So even though the SM.82 didn't achieve the same as the C-47 I consider it a better aircraft, as a transport aircraft but especially because it was such a versatile aircraft which was also cheap to build.

Even though it had the same power as the Ju 52 or C-47 it could transport much more and at greater distances. 
It was a very rugged aircraft, made out of an advanced mixed structure of welded steel tubes, skinned with mertal, plywood or fabric. Inside the fuselage there was much volume that they could create two decks. It had such a big fuselage that it was used to transport light tanks and fighter aircraft to Africa. It achieved great things in supplying the troops in Africa, flying under extremely difficult circumstances and still getting the job done.

As a bomber it could carry an impressive 4 tons, all internal. But of course - like the Ju 52 - it was no longer suited as a real bomber. Instead it could fly night bombing missions or special long-range missions. They managed to reach very long distances, bombing Gibraltar at 1,600 km from Italy. They also bombed an oil refinery somewhere in the Persian Gulf some 4000 km away creating much confusion amongst the allies, and leading to better defences in these areas and thus taking away resources from the front.

It could be powered by several types of engines. After the war it got American P&W engines. With these some stayed in service until 1960 showing its great durability.

Incredible bird! By far, the best Italian aircraft of WW2 (though the Caproni Ca.313 could have been even better )
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2007)

A tail dragger with 3 engines wood and fabric construction. That limits it right there. Even though some were still around in the 60s, I'd like to see the time on the airframe and what they were used for in the post war years and compare that with a typical C-47. Although I've read good things about this aircraft just it's layout and construction puts it in a bygone era.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2007)

Gotta agree with Joe. I mean that aircraft had good performance and capabilities but for me I dont buy it.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 9, 2007)

The thing with the C-47 is that it was an airliner in the 1930s, even carrying about 90% of airline traffic _worldwide_. Then it was pressed into military service and was built in the thousands. They were in use throughout the world for military and civilian use. I believe the last of the military C-47s were retired in *1999 *from Israeli service. There are still 2 C-47/DC-3 planes that run cargo out to Catalina island every day. 

DC-3s are not only being preserved and flown for museums and historical organizations, but are still being used for their original purpose. Not bad for an airplane whose maiden flight was in 1933!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2007)

Agreed Eric and that is why for me the C-47 is the not just the greatest plane of WW2 but the greatest plane of all time.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 9, 2007)

Yep, I think the DC-3/C-47 is the greatest plane of all time also.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 9, 2007)

evangilder said:


> Yep, I think the DC-3/C-47 is the greatest plane of all time also.



No doubt about it, the all time champ.

Speaking of all time champions, there will be a plaque in the Hall of Fame for the B-52 once her days are over. Been flying for 55 years.

TO


----------



## fer-de-lance (Nov 11, 2007)

Definitely "All-time Champ" ... plus few can beat this one:

the "DC-2-and-a-half" ... 







(C-29.5? = [C-33 + C-47] / 2)

May 20, 1941 Chinese National Aviation Corporation DC-3 No. 46 on a scheduled flight from Hong Kong to Chungking and Chengtu had to divert to a small airfield Suifu (now Yibin) due to a Japanese air raid that eluded the Chinese warning net.

The JNAF bombers score a direct hit on the right wing of the DC-3 with a bomb (probably a 60kg land bomb). The right wing outboard of the engine is destroyed. CNAC knew that the Japanese would be back later to try and complete the destruction of the damaged plane. They needed to make repairs and try to fly the plane out as quickly as possible. Bu how!? There were no spare wings available in China.






CNAC Chief Engineer Zygmund Soldinski devised an ingenius plan to repair No. 46. The only replacement wing was from a DC-2 undergoing maintenance in Hong Kong. Soldinski had it modified to fit onto a DC-3 (drilled different attachment holes and sealed up the original ones). It was then strapped to the belly of a DC-2 and flown out to Suifu. The DC-2 wing which was 5ft shorter than the standard DC-3 wing was fitted to No.46, allowing it to fly back to Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong ... after picking up a full load of passengers in Chungking!

CNAC's Famous DC-2 1/2


----------



## magnocain (Dec 23, 2007)

like the Ju52 or the Savoia Marchetti SM.82, the dc3 (or dc2)
also was a bomber. (that;s for those of you who didnt know that)


----------



## Masterdj83 (Dec 23, 2007)

Oh god THE ME 110. What are you thinking. I like the Eurofighter Typhoon though its not In World War 2


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2007)

The Ju-290 might be a good candidate ? 

It was fast, could carry a large load, had a rear loading ramp, excellent defensive armament, long range and was used successfully as an airliner after the war.






















The Ju-252 might be a good candidate as-well, it was a pretty amazing aircraft for its time being very fast, having a long range and a great load carrying capability:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2007)

It might be considered but you still can't compare its longevity to the DC-3


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It might be considered but you still can't compare its longevity to the DC-3




Well ofcourse not, not many were built, much unlike the DC-3. The Ju-290 -252 are individually clearly better transport civil aircraft though.

Had Germany won the war the Ju-290 -252 would've likely had the same reputation as the DC-3 has now.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> Well ofcourse not, not many were built, much unlike the DC-3. The Ju-290 -252 are individually clearly better transport civil aircraft though.
> 
> Had Germany won the war the Ju-290 -252 would've likely had the same reputation as the DC-3 has now.


Your wrong about that... the C54 and the C69 were clearly far in advance of anything the germans might have planned and they were operational . The 52 was light years behind the 47


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> Well ofcourse not, not many were built, much unlike the DC-3. The Ju-290 -252 are individually clearly better transport civil aircraft though.
> 
> Had Germany won the war the Ju-290 -252 would've likely had the same reputation as the DC-3 has now.



A tri-motor taildragger - a bygone era.

I think the Germans just would of produced DC-3s!


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2007)

> Your wrong about that... the C54 and the C69 were clearly far in advance of anything the germans might have planned and they were operational . The 52 was light years behind the 47



Why do you think that I am wrong pbfoot ? The C-69 Constellation (Or L-49) didn't outperform the Ju-290 or Ju-252 in any way except speed. The Ju-290 -252 both flew further, could carry more, had defensive armament and had a rear loading ramp.

Remember the larger Super-Constellation didn't appear till 1950.

And I certainly don't see how the C-54 is a match for the Ju-290 or -252.



FLYBOYJ said:


> A tri-motor taildragger - a bygone era.



Thats odd for you to say since the DC-3 is a taildragger itself, and the Ju-290 -252 don't suffer from the only problem of the taildragger design both being able to load from a rear loading ramp:








> I think the Germans just would of produced DC-3s!



Not when they clearly had something better.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2007)

In terms of transport a/c though, the Arado 232 is ahead of them all. Being able to take off after just 200m this aircraft is truly remarkable.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2007)

Could the Junkers fly an entire route, fully loaded on a single engine? Did it have a galley and a WC? Did it carry 90% of all airline traffic before the war? Would Hitler have referred to them as one of the weapons that won the war? Could it have made an airline a profit carrying only passengers, with no other cargo, or mail?


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> Why do you think that I am wrong pbfoot ? The C-69 Constellation (Or L-49) didn't outperform the Ju-290 or Ju-252 in any way except speed. The Ju-290 -252 both flew further, could carry more, had defensive armament and had a rear loading ramp.
> 
> And I certainly don't see how the C-54 is a match for the Ju-290 or -252.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2007)

Ever considered the German fuel situation or the fact that not many Ju-290 or Ju-252's were built ???

The Ju-290 Ju-252 could carry more further and faster, and were armed, that makes them better than the DC-3/C-47, C-54 L-49. 

I'd also like to point out that the LW did a whole lot of resuplying of German troops in the east, that they failed in StalinGrad can be attributed to bad leadership.

PS: I'm not German pbfoot.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2007)

How does a cargo plane being armed make it better? Because an airplane may carry more with a longer range doesn't necessarily make it better. What was it's reliability? How many of them still fly today?


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2007)

The BV-222 is also a pretty impressive transport a/c, being able to haul ~10 tons of cargo, carry 92 fully equipped troops or 75 injured on stretchers. Range, speed ceiling are impressive as-well.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2007)

evangilder said:


> How does a cargo plane being armed make it better? Because an airplane may carry more with a longer range doesn't necessarily make it better. What was it's reliability? How many of them still fly today?




Reliability was AFAIK excellent. 

How many flew after the war and today is completely irrelevant Evan, many great a/c from then don't fly today. The reason the Ju-290 Ju-252 didn't enjoy the same success as the DC-3 is that not many were produced and most were destroyed during the war, and as was the factory that made them. Had Germany won it would've been a different story.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2007)

I disagree. The DC-3 was already becoming famous before the war even began. How many fly today is not only relevant, but testament to the great design of these aircraft. They have been used by militaries and countries all over the world and are still in use for their original purpose even today. If that's not relevant, what the hell is?

The DC-3 is the greatest aircraft EVER made.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> Why do you think that I am wrong pbfoot ? The C-69 Constellation (Or L-49) didn't outperform the Ju-290 or Ju-252 in any way except speed. The Ju-290 -252 both flew further, could carry more, had defensive armament and had a rear loading ramp.
> 
> Remember the larger Super-Constellation didn't appear till 1950.
> 
> ...



The tail dragger configuration of the DC-3 was its only limitation in my book and there were not a lot of ground loop accidents because you were able to see over the nose unlike many other large taildraggers of the day, plus it was extremely easy to fly and land. 

When you put performance, reliability, safety, ease of maintenance and the ability to make revenue as an airliner, all that combined placed the DC-3 ahead of any cargo plane of its day and that's why so many allied AND German aircraft (surplus) used in the post war flat out didn't see wide use or last long - they didn't have "all the above" plus the ability to make the airlines money - the DC-3 did and that's why it will remain the greatest aircraft of WW2 and of all time.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 23, 2007)

Reliability best internal aero engines ever made I believe when the Israelis were getting the Jewish folk out of Ethiopia in the late 40's one had taken off with of 76sob and landed with 77 . People have started campfires in them as they were being evaced out the stories abound .Yes the Ju's were a great transport and their legacy was famous in Canada as bush planes but they were no c47s. I'll enclose this pic of a 47 with the nose of a f104 tacked on and


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2007)

And an appropriate moniker!


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The tail dragger configuration of the DC-3 was its only limitation in my book and there were not a lot of ground loop accidents because you were able to see over the nose unlike many other large taildraggers of the day, plus it was extremely easy to fly and land.



Well the exact same can be said about the Ju-290. It had no problem with vision over the nose, it didn't ground loop, it was easy to fly and a pleasure to fly as-well. The Ju-290 had the added benefit of longer range, much larger load carrying capability, defensive armament and speed.

The Ju-290 also did excellently as an airliner after the war.

Again the reason it didn't enjoy the same sucess as the C-47 can be attributed to many things, but most importantly is that German lost the war and therefore production stopped.



> When you put performance, reliability, safety, ease of maintenance and the ability to make revenue as an airliner, all that combined placed the DC-3 ahead of any cargo plane of its day and that's why so many allied AND German aircraft (surplus) used in the post war flat out didn't see wide use or last long - they didn't have "all the above" plus the ability to make the airlines money - the DC-3 did and that's why it will remain the greatest aircraft of WW2 and of all time.



Greatest a/c of all time ? Well you see thats where I get off the train, cause although it was a great a/c it couldn't do everything. The C-47 did NOT win the war for the Allies, it was a vital link alright, but so were many other a/c. 

Fact is the C-47 was a good transport airplane, but IMO it lacks the defensive armament, load capability speed to be called the best. The DC-3 did admireably in civil use, being very rugged and dependable, but so did many others. Another reason for why the DC-3 stayed in service for as long as it did was the relative ease with which spare parts could be acquired - something which would've been a nightmare postwar for the Ju-290 as production of it had ended, this meant that contrary to the DC-3 its lifetime as an airliner was limited. 

How many that fly today is completely irrelevant, cause like I pointed out many great aircraft from back in time don't. The C-47 design wasn't some magic design, it wasn't the only multiple engined aircraft which could fly home on one engine, far from it. 

For me the subject of the best a/c of all time is a very debatable one, cause lets think about it, we're litterally talking about millions of millions of a/c made over time, all of which we have to narrow down to one, the best - a hard task. Therefore when talking about which a/c is the best of all time it is all opinion and you can't make blanket statements like "The DC-3 is the greatest a/c ever made", to claim this is absurd when you think about all the other great a/c built over time really. Infact IMO there is no such a thing as the greatest single a/c of all time, only when you divide it into the best of different classes of a/c such as:

Best transport
Best fighter
Best airliner
Best civil plane
Best cargo

etc etc...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2007)

It is all a matter of opinion. The DC-3 is famous because of its actions during World War II [and beyond] but I would never claim it to be technically superior to the other cargo carriers of the day; the C-46 was technically superior. 

If you're going to claim the greatest of aircraft of all time, it's a simple matter of "What aircraft performed its job(s) the best?". Did the Spitfire do a better job at being an interceptor than the B-17 being a bomber?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> Well the exact same can be said about the Ju-290. It had no problem with vision over the nose, it didn't ground loop, it was easy to fly and a pleasure to fly as-well. The Ju-290 had the added benefit of longer range, much larger load carrying capability, defensive armament and speed.
> 
> The Ju-290 also did excellently as an airliner after the war.


If it was that great why didn't its operators seek to have it produced after the war?

Defensive armament? The Russians armed their - that's a non issue here. Had US C-47s needed to be armed, they would of been....


Soren said:


> Again the reason it didn't enjoy the same success as the C-47 can be attributed to many things, but most importantly is that German lost the war and therefore production stopped.


Nope - it wasn't "operationally and economically viable as a modern airliner" - no spares, no product support and I would love to see a comparison of maintenance and operating costs - again not to diminish its capability in its day but if it was really that great it would of been produced after the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> How many that fly today is completely irrelevant, cause like I pointed out many great aircraft from back in time don't. The C-47 design wasn't some magic design, it wasn't the only multiple engined aircraft which could fly home on one engine, far from it.


That's the whole point - it was easily built, it's cost was reasonable, there were plenty of them, the product support for the aircraft was immense, it was easily flown, gave great performance, was reliable and made money for its operator. You may find aircraft with one, two or even three of these attributes but when compared to "the whole package" the DC-3 takes it.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2007)

No, the C-47 did not win the war for the allies, but it was called one of the most important weapons of the war by the Supreme Allied Commander. But I suppose that is irrelevant to you as well. 

If the other aircraft were that good, they would still have been made because of their clearly great design and would still be in use today, regardless of who won the war. The Israelis bought surplus German fighters in their early days. But what transports did they buy? The C-47. 

Sorry, but the Germans losing the war is irrelevant. Good designs transcend victories and defeats.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

I did some research on the Ju 290 and according to what I found only 2 were used in the post war ear - One by Spain and one by the Czechs as the Letov L.290. 

Comparing the Ju 290 to the DC-3 is apples and oranges as the 290 was a much larger aircraft - I would compare it to the DC-6 or the L-049 which both were clearly superior to the 290. Again, if it was able to fill a civilian market in the post war years, operators would of been quick to acquire them or see the production line re-opened.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

I disagree, you can't just re-open a production line like that, the factory was gone, and you'd have to spend millions on starting organizing a new one. It was much easier to use an abundantly existing a/c instead. 

And what exactly makes the L-049 better than the Ju-290 ?? The Ju-290 could carry more further, featured a loading ramp, and had defensive armament. I'd like to see the C-47 equipped with defensive armament, esp. since I only see two places where its at all possible.



> Sorry, but the Germans losing the war is irrelevant. Good designs transcend victories and defeats.



Sorry but I call a BS on that one. Any self respecting country isn't going to just completely copy another country's designs and then use it, its very bad propoganda if they do.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> And what exactly makes the L-049 better than the Ju-290 ?? The Ju-290 could carry more further, featured a loading ramp, and had defensive armament. I'd like to see the C-47 equipped with defensive armament, esp. since I only see two places where its at all possible.


Any aircraft could be armed - the L-049 flew faster, higher and could carry more people...

BTW - C-47 were eventually armed if that really matters.








Soren said:


> Sorry but I call a BS on that one. Any self respecting country isn't going to just completely copy another country's designs and then use it, its very bad propaganda if they do.


Spain and the Czechs built the 109 - Spain built the He 111 and France built the Storch. Bad propaganda? An operator could care less - we're talking the post war here and if if the aircraft design was sound, cost effective to operate and the right price no one is going to care where its linage came from...

Bottom line there were hundreds to DC-3s operating before the war and it was recognized as the premier airliner. During the war it was rapidly produced, easily flown, was cost effective to operate and got the job done. It hung around for another 65 years and I believe there are at least still 200 of them operating. I'm sorry but there isn't any other aircraft from any WW2 air forces coming close to that operating history, and it's not because the allies won the war.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> Sorry but I call a BS on that one. Any self respecting country isn't going to just completely copy another country's designs and then use it, its very bad propoganda if they do.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> Sorry but I call a BS on that one. Any self respecting country isn't going to just completely copy another country's designs and then use it, its very bad propoganda if they do.



Really, besides the aircraft that Joe mentioned, what about Me-262s built by the Czechs. The V2 was the basis for the early American space program. What about the VW Beetle? 

Face it, the DC-3 was the best.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 24, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Any aircraft could be armed - the L-049 flew faster, higher and could carry more people...
> 
> BTW - C-47 were eventually armed if that really matters.


Didn't the Russian version of the DC-3, the Li-2, carry a turret. The Japanese had their version, the Showa/Nakajima L2D Tabby.

Then there is the AC-47 Spooky.

-3× 7.62 mm (0.30 in) General Electric GAU-2/M134 miniguns, 2,000 rounds/gun
or
-10× .30 in Browning AN/M2 machine guns

-48× Mk 24 flares


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

All those are small a/c fighters. And the V-2 wasn't directly copied, it was just used as a basis as a certain German scientist was head of the space rocket program.

If everything which proved excellent during WW2 was directly copied then how come the Pzkpfw. V wasn't directly copied by any country ?? Its simple, the factory was down, so spare parts was a nightmare to get hold of, just ask the French who used the tank after war.

Face it, not every great invention is directly copied, it might very well influence the design built by the other nation though, no doubt, but directly copying a design simply isn't good propoganda.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

The AC-47 is a gun ship for crying out loud! It is a sitting duck for any fighter as it has no rear, top, front or bottom defensive armament. Like I said the C-47 couldn't be equipped with any effective defensive armament, it could only really mount guns on its sides.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> Face it, not every great invention is directly copied, it might very well influence the design built by the other nation though, no doubt, but directly copying a design simply isn't good propoganda.


The Soviets never complained even though the rudder pedals of their Tu-4s and DC-3 were still cast with the "Douglas" and "Boeing" logos respectively....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> The AC-47 is a gun ship for crying out loud! It is a sitting duck for any fighter as it has no rear, top, front or bottom defensive armament. Like I said the C-47 couldn't be equipped qith effective defensive armament, it could only really mount guns on its sides.


The fact that a cargo plane could carry armament is irrelevant. The USAAF never saw a need to arm its C-47s and only a handful were ever shot down by fighters.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

FLYBOYJ,

The Ju-290 could carry more further than the L-049, so except for speed ceiling the L-049 holds no advantages.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Soviets never complained even though the rudder pedals of their Tu-4s and DC-3 were still cast with the "Douglas" and "Boeing" logos respectively....



And ?? Still doesn't mean that every great design was directly copied. Also why would you always try to directly copy a design instead of trying to improve it or perhaps use it as a basis for something better ? The Soviets AFAIK didn't keep the few B-29 copies for very long before they decided making their own much better bomber.

Some designs were directly copied, others weren't. The DC-3 isn't the best transport a/c, there are MANY much better transport a/c today. Be careful not to put something on too high a pedestal! The were many WW2 a/c who were as reliable as the DC-3 and could do things the DC-3 couldn't.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 24, 2007)

Gee Soren, are you saying your super duper German Third Reich transports could take on Allied fighters and win?  

I think I remember some Me323s in the Med being used for target practice. They ended up being debris in the Mediterranean.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> And ?? Still doesn't mean that every great design was directly copied. Also why would you always try to directly copy a design instead of trying to improve it or perhaps use it as a basis for something better ? The Soviets AFAIK didn't keep the few B-29 copies for very long before they decided making their own much better bomber.


The American did not keep their B-29s/B-50s around that long either. The B-50D was replaced in its primary role during the early 1950s by the B-47 and B-52.

Tu-4s were withdrawn in the 1960s, replaced by more advanced aircraft, the Tupolev Tu-95 (starting in 1956) and Tupolev Tu-16 (starting in 1954).



> Be careful not to put something on too high a pedestal!


Good advice you should take.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 24, 2007)

I never said there weren't better transports today. The C-17, C-130 and many others are great transports. The DC-3 was not only a great design, but was influential in many later aircraft.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

*Al,*

LoL!

Defensive armament gives you a chance, none gives you no chance at all!

The Me323's shot down were heavily loaded and were pounded by many Spitfires, it was a turkey shoot. And it was exactly the same which was happening to the Allied bombers over Europe, they were shot down in droves. Defensive armament helps, but it doesn't solve anything.

PS: Thats Russian Li-2 carries ONE SINGLE armed ball turret, a sitting duck from all sides!



> Good advice you should take.



And that comes from you ??!   

Keep the good stuff coming Milo...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> And ?? Still doesn't mean that every great design was directly copied. Also why would you always try to directly copy a design instead of trying to improve it or perhaps use it as a basis for something better ? The Soviets AFAIK didn't keep the few B-29 copies for very long before they decided making their own much better bomber.


The Soviets built almost 500 of them - it was the backbone of their strategic air arm until the mid 1950s and it turned out to be the basis for every large bomber they ever made in the post WW2 era - more than just a few aircraft Soren!


Soren said:


> Some designs were directly copied, others weren't. The DC-3 isn't the best transport a/c, there are MANY much better transport a/c today. Be careful not to put something on too high a pedestal! The were many WW2 a/c who were as reliable as the DC-3 and could do things the DC-3 couldn't.


Name any aircraft that has had the DC-3s/ C-47 longevity and operating history - you can't. As stated there might of been some that carried more or were faster but they weren't cost effective to operate and weren't the right price out of the factory or cost too much to maintain. The DC-3 DESERVES to be placed on a pedestal because no other plane in history come close to its accomplishments.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> And that comes from you ??!


Unlike you Soren, and your 2 buddies, with your blatantly obvious Third Reich bias, I give credit where and when credit is due.

I consider the Fw190 family of single engine fighters to be the *BEST* Germany produced. The Ju 88 I would put in the same class as the Mosquito. The Panther was a superb tank. The Type XXI subs were hands and feet above any Allied sub.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

The 1951 Tu-95 is a completely different design than the B-29 (Tu-4) FLOYBOYJ, thats quite clear from looking at the a/c.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Unlike you Soren, and your 2 buddies, with your blatantly obvious Third Reich bias, I give credit where and when credit is due.



Bullshiiiit!

And who are my two buddies btw ???



> I consider the Fw190 family of single engine fighters to be the *BEST* Germany produced.



You consider them the best that Germany produced, yes, and that's it. 



> The Ju 88 I would put in the same class as the Mosquito. The Panther was a superb tank. The Type XXI subs were hands and feet above any Allied sub.



So you think that I am incapable of giving praise to any Allied design ?? If so I'm gonna have to ask you to wake up, cause I've often expressed my admiration for many Allied designs, such as the Spitfire, Mosquito, M1 Garand, Thompson and believe it or not but the DC-3 as-well, and the list goes on.
So you can quit you bias accusation emmediately!


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Name any aircraft that has had the DC-3s/ C-47 longevity and operating history - you can't. As stated there might of been some that carried more or were faster but they weren't cost effective to operate and weren't the right price out of the factory or cost too much to maintain. The DC-3 DESERVES to be placed on a pedestal because no other plane in history come close to its accomplishments.



What about the Boeing 747 ? Or one of Airbus's aircraft ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> What about the Boeing 747 ? Or one of Airbus's aircraft ?


Not even close.

Right now as far as years in service, operational longevity, costs, versatility the next in line is the C-130.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

I'd have to say that the Boeing 747 is pretty versatile as-well, and cost wise very friendly when compared to the money it brings in. The C-130 is a great candidate as-well actually, and I'd even say its a better candidate than the DC-3. The DC-3 has been going for longer alright, but that doesn't make it better or any more dependable.

Interestingly the C-130 hsa the same cargo hold capacity as the BV-222, and can carry the same amount of people - 92 fully equipped troops or 75 injured on stretchers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> The 1951 Tu-95 is a completely different design than the B-29 (Tu-4) FLOYBOYJ, thats quite clear from looking at the a/c.


It's design linage comes DIRECTLY from the Tu-4. I even think part of the aft fuselage is still the same.

"Development of the TU-95 intercontinental bomber began in the early 1950s after series production of the medium-range TU-4 started. Initially, several design configurations were considered, including a modification of the TU-4 and production of a new aircraft with piston engines." 

Tu-95 BEAR (TUPOLEV)

There were 2 or 3 development aircraft built that eventually led to the Tu 95. There was an article in Air Classics many years ago called "Billion Dollar Bomber" and it goes through the whole design lineage from the first B-29 copies (Tu-4) right through the Bear and Badger.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

I stand corrected it was the Tu 16 that used an enlarged Tu 4 fuselage


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

"Development of the TU-95 intercontinental bomber began in the early 1950s after series production of the medium-range TU-4 started. Initially, several design configurations were *considered*, including a modification of the TU-4 and production of a new aircraft with piston engines."


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

Oh I see you realized that yourself  

I stand corrected about the amount of Tu-4's built though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

The first Tu-4s were built in 1947. Without the "borrowed B-29s" that stared all this, the Soviets would of been at least another 5 years behind the west in large aircraft production.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 24, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Soviets built almost 500 of them - it was the backbone of their strategic air arm until the mid 1950s and it turned out to be the basis for every large bomber they ever made in the post WW2 era - more than just a few aircraft Soren!
> 
> Name any aircraft that has had the DC-3s/ C-47 longevity and operating history - you can't. As stated there might of been some that carried more or were faster but they weren't cost effective to operate and weren't the right price out of the factory or cost too much to maintain. The DC-3 DESERVES to be placed on a pedestal because no other plane in history come close to its accomplishments.


I disagree to a point 
there is one aircraft that is being overlooked the DHC2 Beaver/DHC3 Otter and its follow on DHC 6 Twin Otter (Twotter) although not a heavy hauler its versatilty and reliability are unmatched


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I disagree to a point
> there is one aircraft that is being overlooked the DHC2 Beaver/DHC3 Otter and its follow on DHC 6 Twin Otter (Twotter) although not a heavy hauler its versatilty and reliability are unmatched


It still ain't a DC-3. 10,000 of them built and used by EVERY major airline of the world. The Beaver and Otter changed a very adverse region. The DC-3 changed the world.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

pbfoot,

Hence there's no one best a/c of all time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> Hence there's no one best a/c of all time.


Untill we have another 100 years of aviation pass us - in my book it goes to the DC-3.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

I disagree. The DC-3 was very limited in its use, while other a/c such as the Ju-290 could fly trans Atlantic flights, carry a whole lot more faster. Just its range limits the DC-3 allot.

It was the trans Atlantic a/c that brought the world together, not the DC-3.

The DC-3 was/is a great small passenger or transport plane, possibly the greatest small passenger transport a/c of all time, but IMO it's definitely not the greatest a/c of all time.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

Anyway I have to join my family now for Christmas celebrations. A merry Christmas to you all!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> I disagree. The DC-3 was very limited in its use, while other a/c such as the Ju-290 could fly trans Atlantic flights, carry a whole lot more faster. Just its range limits the DC-3 allot.


Limited use? It was used in EVERY theater of WW2!!!!


Soren said:


> It was the trans Atlantic a/c that brought the world together, not the DC-3.


In post war Trans atlantic service, DC-3s flew the Atlantic Via Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland and eventually the European continent - Agree its size and range limited it and that's why we eventually seen aircraft like the DC-4, 6 and 7 and the Lockheed 049 and 1049 appear.


Soren said:


> The DC-3 was/is a great small passenger or transport plane, possibly the greatest small passenger transport a/c of all time, but IMO it's definitely not the greatest a/c of all time.



Tell that to these folks....

List of C-47 Skytrain operators
From Wikipedia
1 Operators 

1.1 Argentina 
1.2 Australia 
1.3 Belgium 
1.4 Benin 
1.5 Bolivia 
1.6 Brazil 
1.7 Bulgaria 
1.8 Burma 
1.9 Cambodia 
1.10 Canada 
1.11 Chad 
1.12 Chile 
1.13 Republic of China 
1.14 People's Republic of China 
1.15 Colombia 
1.16 Republic of the Congo 
1.17 Democratic Republic of the Congo 
1.18 Cuba 
1.19 Czechoslovakia 
1.20 Denmark 
1.21 Ecuador 
1.22 Egypt 
1.23 El Salvador 
1.24 Ethiopia 
1.25 Finland 
1.26 France 
1.27 Gabon 
1.28 Germany 
1.29 East Germany 
1.30 Germany 
1.31 Greece 
1.32 Guatemala 
1.33 Haiti 
1.34 Honduras 
1.35 Hungary 
1.36 India 
1.37 Indonesia 
1.38 Iran 
1.39 Israel 
1.40 Italy 
1.41 Côte d'Ivoire 
1.42 Japan 
1.43 Laos 
1.44 Libya 
1.45 Madagascar 
1.46 Malawi 
1.47 Mali 
1.48 Mauritania 
1.49 Mexico 
1.50 Monaco 
1.51 Morocco 
1.52 Netherlands 
1.53 New Zealand 
1.54 Nicaragua 
1.55 Niger 
1.56 Nigeria 
1.57 North Korea 
1.58 Norway 
1.59 Oman 
1.60 Pakistan 
1.61 Papua New Guinea 
1.62 Paraguay 
1.63 Peru 
1.64 Philippines 
1.65 Poland 
1.66 Portugal 
1.67 Rhodesia 
1.68 Romania 
1.69 Rwanda 
1.70 Saudi Arabia 
1.71 Senegal 
1.72 South Africa 
1.73 South Korea 
1.74 Somalia 
1.75 Soviet Union 
1.76 Sri Lanka 
1.77 Spain 
1.78 Sweden 
1.79 Syria 
1.80 Thailand 
1.81 Togo 
1.82 Turkey 
1.83 Uganda 
1.84 Uruguay 
1.85 United Kingdom 
1.86 United States 
1.87 Venezuela 
1.88 Vietnam 
1.89 Republic of Vietnam 
1.90 Yemen 
1.91 Yugoslavia 
1.92 Zaire 
1.93 Zambia 

I tried to list the DC-3 operators and it was too extensive....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> Anyway I have to join my family now for Christmas celebrations. A merry Christmas to you all!


And a Merry Christmas to you Soren - I spoke to Santa and I asked him to leave a C-47 model in your stocking!


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

> Limited use? It was used in EVERY theater of WW2!!!!



You misunderstood me, when I say it was limited in its use I mean that it couldn't carry allot, its range was short, it wasn't very fast. It is possibly the most used a/c of all time so I'd never claim it to have ever been in limited use. 

The DC-3 needed a whole lot of time stops to cross the atlantic, hence it wasn't the aircraft that really brought to two continents together, that job was fullfilled by the trans atlantic a/c.



> I spoke to Santa and I asked him to leave a C-47 model in your stocking!



Really ?? Now I can't wait to open it!  



I seriously wouldn't mind getting one though...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> You misunderstood me, when I say it was limited in its use I mean that it couldn't carry allot, its range was short, it wasn't very fast. It is possibly the most used a/c of all time so I'd never claim it to have ever been in limited use.


Gotcha..


Soren said:


> The DC-3 needed a whole lot of time stops to cross the atlantic, hence it wasn't the aircraft that really brought to two continents together, that job was fullfilled by the trans atlantic a/c.


But it was the first aircraft to economically and safely accomplish this on a regular basis while making money in the process...



Soren said:


> Really ?? Now I can't wait to open it!
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously wouldn't mind getting one though...




You never know - Merry Christmas!


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

Merry Christmas!

Santa didn't bring me a DC-3 model  Oh well, might go buy one then, haven't got one in my collection (Big mistake! I know!), and then I'll have something to pass my time with tommorrow, helps lower the blood pressure


----------



## Denniss (Dec 24, 2007)

Regarding the production or non-production of german aircraft post-war:
1) Spain actually paid for license building rights of the Bf 109 and He 111 so they had all the technical data and drawings needed to keep up the production after german defeat. But they had to modifiy the design to accept other engines.

2) France and Czech built these aircraft because they had the facturies actually producing these aircraft located inside their country. They proably also had all data and drawings to keep production up. The Czech 109 G-10 (AKA Avia S-99) was good but once they ran out of fighter engines and were forced to use Jumo 211 bomber engines (Avia S-199) the design was not so good anymore because of problems with engine torque. Czechs even built the Me 262 A-1a (Avia S-92) and B-1a (CS-92) postwar with nine and three built.

I also see the Ju 252/352, 290 and the Ar 232 as good designs with potential and at least the Ar 232 might have some influence on other designs. The DC-3 was influential because it was relatively cheap and reliable as was the Ju 52 several years earlier. And the DC-3 was available in large numbers postwar as the military replaced them with larger transport and passenger aircraft.

And if you look at the production cost I don't think the Constellation was very cheap to built. The fuselage changes the changes very often, that may have been some sort of expensive/intensive on manhours to built.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> Merry Christmas!
> 
> Santa didn't bring me a DC-3 model  Oh well, might go buy one then, haven't got one in my collection (Big mistake! I know!), and then I'll have something to pass my time with tommorrow, helps lower the blood pressure



Where you at, Soren? Asia? It's already Christmas there? My kids are literally counting down the seconds until Santa arrives (yes, they've been driving my wife I crazy all day!).

However, as much as I hate to agree with Flyboy (fighter planes are so much more interesting!), I gotta go with him on the C-47/DC-3; C-47's were still flying during the freakin' "Vietnam Conflict" (that's the PC version!), not to mention WWII Korea. So, as much as I love the Me 262/P-38/Do 335; I gotta go with the AC-47/DC-3.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Where you at, Soren? Asia?



Asia ?? Why Asia? AFAIK not many people celebrate Christmas in Asia 

I'm in Europe Scandinavia at the moment, and here tradition is that the presents are given after a dance around the tree at around 8 - 10 PM, not first the morning after 

Tradition is that each person has to pick a salm to be sung, and then when all the salms have been sung the kids get a free leash at the gifts, then us adults get to pick up what'ever's left afterwards  Hehe no no, the kids just get to grab their presents first thats all


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2007)

The C-130 has had the longest front-line operational history, the next in line for the title is the B-52. The DC-3 still holds the title for the longest operational history because a lot of nations still hold on to aircraft. The B-747 doesn't come close.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 25, 2007)

Denniss said:


> And if you look at the production cost I don't think the Constellation was very cheap to built. The fuselage changes the changes very often, that may have been some sort of expensive/intensive on manhours to built.


Actually it doesn't - the fuselage was built in a large production jig, there were actually several of them to support the production line. They would be placed in a large building side-by-side and the fuselage built up from bulkheads and then longerons and stringers added. I seen some of these jigs before they were ultimately scrapped. 

The principal is the same for most aircraft in today's world.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I stand corrected it was the Tu 16 that used an enlarged Tu 4 fuselage



The Tu 16 had a completely different fuselage than Tu-4/B-29 because of his flying profile - with the "widebody" like Tu-4 you can't even reach the subsonic speeds in a diving flight without the airframe destruction. It was not larger ,but rather thinner with both engines almost integrated to it. 

However, I completely agree with you - it was a milestone in a soviet bomber engineering , especially in a system development. 
It was also a useless plane from the strategic point of view - you could barely reach targets inside the UK , not to mention the US (only in a kamikadze one way mission  ). That's the reason why various adventurous plans like capture of american bases in Iceland or Greenland with invading forces transported by submarines were developed .
Back to the topic - the Spitfire easily beats others from the general point of view - great airplane, good combat record and a winner of the war


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2007)

Ramirezzz said:


> The Tu 16 had a completely different fuselage than Tu-4/B-29 because of his flying profile - with the "widebody" like Tu-4 you can't even reach the subsonic speeds in a diving flight without the airframe destruction. It was not larger ,but rather thinner with both engines almost integrated to it.
> 
> However, I completely agree with you - it was a milestone in a soviet bomber engineering , especially in a system development.
> It was also a useless plane from the strategic point of view - you could barely reach targets inside the UK , not to mention the US (only in a kamikadze one way mission  ). That's the reason why various adventurous plans like capture of american bases in Iceland or Greenland with invading forces transported by submarines were developed .
> Back to the topic - the Spitfire easily beats others from the general point of view - great airplane, good combat record and a winner of the war


Although one of the great COMBAT aircraft of WW2, let's not forget the limitations of the Spit (range) as well as the mauling it received in the post BoB sweeps into France by the Fw 190.

As argued, the DC-3/ C-47 was a benchmark and the fact that is served on all fronts, was used by dozens of Airforces and civilian operators since it's inception and is still in service today is more than enough proof to support the claim of it being the Best Aircraft of WW2 and probably the greatest aircraft ever built.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As argued, the DC-3/ C-47 was a benchmark and the fact that is served on all fronts, was used by dozens of Airforces and civilian operators since it's inception and is still in service today is more than enough proof to support the claim of it being the Best Aircraft of WW2 and probably the greatest aircraft ever built.



Ditto 8)


----------



## drgondog (Dec 29, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The C-130 has had the longest front-line operational history, the next in line for the title is the B-52. The DC-3 still holds the title for the longest operational history because a lot of nations still hold on to aircraft. The B-747 doesn't come close.



?? I thought the first flight for the 52 was 1952 and production ops in 1955 - whereas the C-130 first flight was 1954 with ops in 1956?

The 52 is still projected to extend into 2020+

It would have been #1 on my list but was focused on WWII for the C-47.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2007)

Ramirezzz said:


> The Tu 16 had a completely different fuselage than Tu-4/B-29 because of his flying profile - with the "widebody" like Tu-4 you can't even reach the subsonic speeds in a diving flight without the airframe destruction. It was not larger ,but rather thinner with both engines almost integrated to it.


I stand corrected - Aft Fuselage - I've seen reference stating that a section of the Tu 16 aft fuselage was derived from the Tu 4 - a very common practice in aircraft construction.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2007)

drgondog said:


> ?? I thought the first flight for the 52 was 1952 and production ops in 1955 - whereas the C-130 first flight was 1954 with ops in 1956?
> 
> The 52 is still projected to extend into 2020+
> 
> It would have been #1 on my list but was focused on WWII for the C-47.




All true....

I would tend to swing to he 130 based on some of its combat and covert exploits, not that the B-52 didn't have any....


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

B-52 has certainly good points in this pool, but ironically (and luckily) it was never been used in its primary role as a nuclear weapons carrier.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 30, 2007)

Ramirezzz said:


> B-52 has certainly good points in this pool, but ironically (and luckily) it was never been used in its primary role as a nuclear weapons carrier.



Which is why I rank it so highly (for one reason). It was SAC in the context of the Big Stick for so many years.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 30, 2007)

Oh, it carried plenty of nuclear weapons in the cold war days. Thankfully, it never had to _drop _them.


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 31, 2007)

> Which is why I rank it so highly (for one reason). It was SAC in the context of the Big Stick for so many years.



It was SAC and represented the frontline of our manned nuclear deterrent. What a great plane. 


All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## renrich (Jan 5, 2008)

Am in the process of reading a book by Clay Blair entitled "Hitler's U Boats" I expect to be an "expert" on the subject(if I can remember anything he says) if I ever finish the book. It is extremely detailed. Anyway, he states that some of the B24s used for ASW duty had much of the bomb bay taken up by extra fuel tanks(which is not surprising) but also all the MG turrets removed and 4-20mm fixed guns installed in the nose. First I ever heard of that. Must have been exciting strafing a sub with 4-20mms in a B24.


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 6, 2008)

renrich said:


> Am in the process of reading a book by Clay Blair entitled "Hitler's U Boats" I expect to be an "expert" on the subject(if I can remember anything he says) if I ever finish the book. It is extremely detailed. Anyway, he states that some of the B24s used for ASW duty had much of the bomb bay taken up by extra fuel tanks(which is not surprising) but also all the MG turrets removed and 4-20mm fixed guns installed in the nose. First I ever heard of that. Must have been exciting strafing a sub with 4-20mms in a B24.



Rich, most of the RAF's Coastal Command Liberator varients carried an extra fuel tank in the bomb bay to give the a/c VLR capability. The Liberator MkI, which was specially modified for 120 sqn RAF, was armed with 4x 20mm cannons in a bulge under the forward fuselage plus hand operated MG's in the beam and tail positions.


----------



## renrich (Jan 6, 2008)

Thanks Wildcat, Keeping some mgs in the tail and elsewhere would make sense in case of running into a JU88. I wonder if a B24 ever actually strafed a u boat with those 20 mms?


----------



## renrich (Jan 6, 2008)

Wild cat, another thought on the B24 and ASW. I have read that the B24 was very heavy on the controls with a lot of muscle needed to maneuver it. I wonder how that aspect would allow it to work in and out of a dive angle in order to bring those 20 mms into play?


----------



## Goodrapid (Jan 8, 2008)

I suppose a quad 20mm can be quite damaging for a sub even if one would start firing, say, a kilometer away. Provided one has a reasonably large ammo supply and gets the fall of shot proper, one might perhaps hit the boat with a few percent of the rounds during those 5-10 seconds.

Although it must have been quite the experience to pull up a Liberator from even a shallow dive, even with two pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2008)

Actually the B-24 was supposed to be an easy flying aircraft (contrary to legend) unless it looses an engine or suffers damage (especially in the wings). When the Davis airfoil was incorporated into the design I think little thought was given to the performance of the aircraft on 3 or even two engines...


----------



## Graeme (Jan 8, 2008)

renrich said:


> all the MG turrets removed and 4-20mm fixed guns installed in the nose. Must have been exciting strafing a sub with 4-20mms in a B24.



You can just make out the 'Blister Pack' in this photo of the Liberator I. They retained the hand held Brownings, but A&AEE was critical of this, describing them as ineffective, as after only 5 seconds of firing, they required a 60 second cooling period before refiring. Vickers guns were requested.

Trivia for the day..the 4-20mm blister pack could be re-armed in in the air by two men in 75 seconds.





They also trialled the 'Sub Killing' Type C rocket projectile pack, with 8-RP launchers on a Liberator Mark III (FL927/G). Ground firing buckled the bomb doors and broke perspex windows, but air firing caused no problems. I don't know how, but they could reload the rockets in flight. So they strengthened the bomb doors and carried on with the testing. Results revealed that the best method of attack with the rockets was firing them at the end of a shallow dive of 15-20 degrees and pulling out at 250ft, using about 2G.


----------



## Goodrapid (Jan 9, 2008)

Great pictures of that very upgunned/uprocketed B-24.
Must have felt like being of the receiving end of a volley from a Mi-24 chopper. Reload in flight....I like it.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2008)

Wouldn't want to be in a surfaced enemy U-boat if that thing came by! Not only does it have lots of rockets guns, it's gonna drop bombs after you as-well! Yikes!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 13, 2008)

The Li-2 could also cary 2x 7.62mm MG's in waist gunner positions near the tail. (one MG on each side) The turret had onle a 7.62mm in early models, but was later replaced with a 12.7mm UBK haevy machine gun. (remember the UBK's performance was almost as good as the M3 Browning, with 820-850 m/s velocity and up to 1050 rpm)

Still volnerable to head-on attack (though some were fitted with a single 7.62mm in the nose iirc) and from below, but was decently protected from above and modestly from the sides and rear.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 13, 2008)

> after only 5 seconds of firing, they required a 60 second cooling period before refiring.



That is true for the M2 Aerial Weapon as well.

Here are the burst limits:


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 13, 2008)

But in the same time the Soviet gun would have fired many more rounds.(at its maximum cyclic rate) Did the M3 have similar firing time limits? (if around the same time, many more rounds would be able to be fired per burst, obviously due to the high ROF)


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 13, 2008)

All machineguns have burst limits kool kitty89. Just like any other machine, they have operating parameters.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 14, 2008)

I know, but if the time limit is the same, the one with the higher ciclic rate will have more firepower.(assuming similar ballistics)

And on the DC-3/C-47/variants there of, if not the best all-around a/c in history, it is probably the most sucessful in its overall design and usage.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2008)

The higher the RoF the quicker the heating of the barrell, thus time limits would be shorter for weapons with a higher RoF.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 14, 2008)

Inless better alloys or cooling systems were used, but this wouldn't have been the case for the soviet gun, though I don't know if the M3 had improvements in construction and cooling...

Still the single 12.7mm turret and single 7.62mm in waist and nose was a considderable defensive armament.(though still weak, though not so much considdering the size of the a/c) Similar to many early-war armaments of German medium bombers. (He 111, Do 17, Ju 88 )


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 16, 2008)

Soren, would you agree that if not the best, the C-47/DC-3/etc. was the most successful aircraft in history so far?


----------



## Elvis (Feb 22, 2008)

I believe it was Eisenhower who called it....the C-47.







What was that list again? The C-47, the landing craft and the 2 1/2 ton truck.
That what won the war for us.



Elvis


----------



## Gundrium (Feb 25, 2008)

Ok. I have gotten torched in the worst aircrast area for this, an I understand this is about aircraft that ACUTUALY MADE IT, but should we not also discuss aircraft That ALLMOST made it? Like the Grumman Bearcat and Tigercat? Or pehaps the prototype of the C-47 that had a TURRET? 




P.S: I KNOW THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL COMMENT ABOUT AIRCRAFT FROM WW2!!!!! SO NO FLAMERS!!!


----------



## Elvis (Feb 26, 2008)

Re: C-47 w/ turret.
 
IIRC, I believe that design inspired "Puff the Magic Dragon" of the Vietnam era.




Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 26, 2008)

As mentioned on the last couple pages the Russian's C-47's (or license built) had a 12.7 mm turret on top and up to 3x 7.62 mm guns (total) in waist and (sometimes) nose positions iirc. (note ShKAS 7.62 mm guns are more powerful than other RCMG'c with the same mussel velocity as the .30-06 M2 Browning but a heavier round with a much higher ROF; Note: the .30 M2 Browning was more powerful than the .303 browning as well) 

See: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 27, 2008)

The Li-2 (Soviet C-47)


----------



## Gundrium (Feb 28, 2008)

WOW! When the article mentioned a turret, I ASSUMED they meant a nose turret... (I guess it's like what they say... when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME...)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 29, 2008)

The Russians did that, I don't think the USAAF ever felt a major need to introduce armament on the C-47 during WWII.

I learned of this model while searching the plane inventory on Il-2. 

The Japanese had a version of the C-47 equivalent (converted from their DC-3's iirc) which also carries a top-mounted turret. The Ju 52 had a similar turret.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 1, 2008)

Not _exactly_ the same thing, but the B-18, which was heavily based on the DC-2, (eventually) had a powered nose turret.








Elvis


----------



## broke91hatch (Mar 13, 2008)

Im going to have to go with the Dauntless on this one. Even though my heart lies with the Corsair


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 9, 2008)

Hurricane can claim as being the only aircraft to see action in every theatre, Russian, Mediterannean, western europe, pacific, burma, china, malaysa,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> Hurricane can claim as being the only aircraft to see action in every theatre, Russian, Mediterannean, western europe, pacific, burma, china, malaysa,


And how did it get it's replacement parts and fuel - and are there 500 of them still flying today?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 9, 2008)

bf109 Emil said:


> Hurricane can claim as being the only aircraft to see action in every theatre, Russian, Mediterannean, western europe, pacific, burma, china, malaysa,



I think the P-40 did that as well. (although not in theaters that were evacuated before it got there, like Singapore iirc)


Agree, FBJ.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think the P-40 did that as well. (although not in theaters that were evacuated before it got there, like Singapore iirc)
> 
> 
> Agree, FBJ.



Don't forget the Aleutians....


----------



## Marcel (Apr 9, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And how did it get it's replacement parts and fuel - and are there 500 of them still flying today?



A C47 didn't win the BoB Joe  And I think a Hurricane has little use in peacetime, while this is different for the DC3/C47, so this comparisment isn't fair. But for the rest I agree on the Dacota being the best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2008)

Marcel said:


> But for the rest I agree on the Dacota being the best.




But let's be fair, a Hurricane at an airshow is a good thing!


----------



## Marcel (Apr 9, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But let's be fair, a Hurricane at an airshow is a good thing!



Yep, would like to see one, I never saw one flying. But a Dac flew over my house last week, so that makes it up a little


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 9, 2008)

Elvis said:


> What was that list again? The C-47, the landing craft and the 2 1/2 ton truck. That what won the war for us.



The bazooka, the Jeep, the atom bomb, and last but not least, the C–47.

There are some absolutes in this world, things that are non-debatable, and the C-47's place as the greatest aircraft in aviation history is one of those things.

TO


----------



## Marcel (Apr 9, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> There are some absolutes in this world, things that are non-debatable, and the C-47's place as the greatest aircraft in aviation history is one of those things.
> 
> TO



I think the Flyer I would be a strong contender as wel


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 9, 2008)

The DC-3/C-47 and derivatives is certainly the most sucessful aircraft in history though.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 9, 2008)

So the P-40 may have actually served on more fronts than the Hurricane.

Though the DC-3/C-47 was pretty much used everywhere as well (including the Japanese), since it was the dominant pre-war civil transport and airliner.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 12, 2008)

Elvis said:


> What was that list again? The C-47, the landing craft and the 2 1/2 ton truck.
> That what won the war for us.





ToughOmbre said:


> The bazooka, the Jeep, the atom bomb, and last but not least, the C–47.


LOL! Good one, Ombre!  

I did an google search and came up with this quote...

_"The Jeep, the Dakota and the Landing Craft were the three tools that won the war" 
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower_

It can be found at Brian's Military Jeep website.




Elvis


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 14, 2008)

this clip is a must see for any aviation buff


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O6Eg_6DTso_

the camera had to have balls just to continue filming, and notice when you see the spit coming, how low it is about 200 metres before pulling up...wow


----------



## Elvis (Apr 15, 2008)

...and if you think that one's cool, check 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqK1FcM2Bus_ out.

I must've seen this 50 times already and I still wince when it flies over.



Elvis


----------



## Kruska (May 2, 2008)

Following up on this thread it might be "dangerous" to post the following:

The C-47 is the best ww2 a/c

because; ?

1) the best fighter was a C-47
2) the best heavy bomber was a C-47
3) the best medium bomber was a C-47
4) the best ground attack a/c was a C-47
5) the best sub hunter was a C-47
6) the best night fighter was a C-47
7) the best transport a/c was a C-47
8) the best sea plane was a C-47
9) the best recon a/c was a C-47
10) the best trainer a/c was a C-47

Let's assume that the C-47 was indeed the best transport a/c, so does 1 out of ten criterias make any a/c the BEST of all ?

Even in a direct comparrison to a Ju 290 it wouldn't stand up to being the best transport a/c. Fact is that Germany lost the war and as such Douglas could market the C-47 unoposed, which makes it at most - the best post war transport a/c.

Which a/c had the overall biggest impact in regards to the outcome of WW2in the ETO or PTO ? the answer according to Gen. Eisenhower is C-47, to me it would be thousands of B17's and B24's or sarcastically the B-29 over Japan during a week in August 1945.

Which a/c had the means to forward the future layout of any transportation or civil airliner after ww2, the answer (IMHO) would be a C-47 a Ju 290 and even a Fw C-200 ex Condor/Lufthansa

So to my understanding this answer could only be verified by setting up certain criterias and make a poll out of it (I think this could be an interesting alternative). 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## fly boy (May 2, 2008)

along with flyboyJ C-47


----------



## smg (May 2, 2008)

p 47 and p 40


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 2, 2008)

The C-47 was the most important for what it did, the C-46 and C-54 were superior and more capable designs but they weren't available in the numbers necessary to do what the C-47 did, it being the dominant pre war airliner as well. And the DC-3/variants was undoubtedly the most successful a/c of all time. And on the trainer issue, the docile characteristics of the C-47 would have made for an excellent multi-engine introductory trainer, or even a basic trainer in a pinch. (better than going straight to "live" trainer like a T-6 etc)

But "best" is really kind inspecific, "most important" or "most capable" being more descriptive. So it kind of leaves allot up to interpretation.

There's another discussion over here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/4-most-important-12434.html

And some more here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/pick-6-c-build-your-af-beginning-wwii-11731.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2008)

I look at the "best" in terms of being able to perform its mission, versatility, ease of maintenance and construction, impact to the war effort, ability to be improved, longevity, and cost. Role it up and it's the C-47.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Following up on this thread it might be "dangerous" to post the following:
> 
> The C-47 is the best ww2 a/c
> 
> ...



Go back and actually read the posts and you might find that people are voting for the C-47 because of historical aspects.

There is more to winning a war than shooting bullets and dropping bombs...


----------



## coabienjames (May 2, 2008)

I think the F6F Hellcat was at least one of the best planes of the war because without the Zero killer we would have lost a lot more than we did to the Japanese fleet, but thats just me. Anyone agree?


----------



## pbfoot (May 2, 2008)

coabienjames said:


> I think the F6F Hellcat was at least one of the best planes of the war because without the Zero killer we would have lost a lot more than we did to the Japanese fleet, but thats just me. Anyone agree?


Personally I don't think the Hellcat is even in the top 10.
109, Spit, P51, Corsair, Fw190, Ta152 , B17, B29, Lancaster,B24


----------



## parsifal (May 2, 2008)

Each type is a specialty, so you have transports, fighters etc. The question in my mind is which type had the greates impact on the wars outcome.

The arguments about the C-47 are good, but i dont agree that these flashier front line types are the types that had the most impact...

IMO it was the trainers that turned out the pilots that could fly these things. Without good pilots, the aircraft is just an airborne target. Without good trainers you cant get good pilots.

So my votes are going to go to a/c like the tiger moth, or the harvard. IMO these were the planes that contributed most to the outcome of the war.


----------



## xCR33Dx (May 2, 2008)

hey smg. whered you get the first picture?
--------------
P-47 and F-4U


----------



## Kruska (May 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Each type is a specialty, so you have transports, fighters etc. The question in my mind is which type had the greates impact on the wars outcome.
> 
> The arguments about the C-47 are good, but i dont agree that these flashier front line types are the types that had the most impact...
> 
> ...




```

```

Hello parsifal,

I was just about to mention exactly the same whilst reading the above posts,
so thanks for helping me out on this. If the Luftwaffe had the best pilots in ww2 then you might have to consider to add a German trainer  

However it all comes back to ones own criterias; as such FLYBOY would indeed be correct to place a C-47 above all.

As for my criterias it would be a P-51, since it displayed its abilities not only in the historical section but also in the technical, support and action role.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Elvis (May 3, 2008)

Parsifal,

Just a side note to an otherwise exemplary posting - the primary trainer for the Americans was not the Harvard / Texan.
There's a reason for the "*A*" designation in "AT-6".
By your accord, it would be the one of _P_T's, like the Stearman (and Budd Davidson did say that if he was going ground loop in any aircraft, it would be a Stearman. One tough airplane).

-------------------------------------

Kool Kitty,

The C-47 was actually the DC-2, which was a slightly smaller aircraft.
The DC-3 was actually a "stretch" version of the "-2", because it originally housed sleeping berths, as well as regular seats.
Eventually, the berths were removed and the DC-3 received all seating in the traditional fashion.
I believe the DC-2 was 12-14 passenger, while the DC-3 was 16-18 passenger.
Not saying the DC-3 wasn't used by the military in WWII, just that it was not the C-47. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I think it was like C-49 or C-52, something like that.
...that's why I call the C-47, "The Good Ship Lolly-Pop", because was a _DC-2_ that Shirley Temple was "flying" on when she sang that song in the movie.



Elvis


----------



## Elvis (May 3, 2008)

Kruska said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...


You know, you bring up an interesting thought.
The only trainer I'm aware of was the BF-108.
That seems like it would be more of an Adavanced Trainer, considering the time.
I wonder what the other trainers, if any existed, the Germans used?
I feel there had to be something that was simpler. 



Elvis


----------



## Graeme (May 3, 2008)

Elvis said:


> I wonder what the other trainers, if any existed, the Germans used? Elvis



Hi Elvis,

Primary and basic trainers of the early years. Class A2 Land, B1 Land, B1 Sea, B2 Land and B2 Sea... 

Bu 131
Bu 133
Bu 181
Fw 44
He 72
Kl 25
Kl 35

Ar 65
Ar 66
Ar 68
Ar 76
Ar 96
Fw 56
Go 145
He 45
He 46
He 51
*Bf 108*

He 42W 
He 60W
He 114

Fw 58
He 70
Ju F13

Ju W33 W
Ju W34 W


----------



## parsifal (May 3, 2008)

How do the german trainers compare to the Allied ones. The whole concept of the ideal trainer turns the per formance issue right on its head. What makes for a good trainer? I would think low cost, and ease of flying for basic traiers. For the advanced trainers, you want to ramp things up so that your trainee pilots get as close as possible to the fron line types as is possible. Finally there are the OTU aircraft, actual frontline types. 

I dont know that ther is much in the different types, but I do know that the allied training programs pulled right away with their pilot training programs. By the wars end, allied pilots were emerging from the flight schools with over 250 hours of flight training under their belts, whereas the axis pilots might be lucky if they had 50 hours. There was a chaotic training program behind the axis frontline forces, whereas the allied efforts were all designed to maximise pilot survivability, and integration. 

For the Commonwealth the scheme par excellance was the EATS scheme. At the start of the Second World War, the British Government looked to the Empire and Dominions for air training help because the United Kingdom did not have the space to accommodate training and operational facilities, and because aerodromes in the United Kingdom were vulnerable to enemy attack. The Agreement was signed by Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand on 17 December 1939, it listed the percentage of trainees each country would send, the percentage of costs each would take on, the training schedule, and the aerodrome opening schedule. 
Between 1940 and 1945, some 151 schools had been established across Canada with a ground organization of 104,113 men and women. By the end of the Second World War, the BCATP (Canada) and the EATS (Australia/NZ) had produced 131,553 aircrew, including pilots, wireless operators, air gunners, and navigators for the Air Forces of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. 

The USAAF scheme was even greater. I have no idea exactly the number of aircrew, but i do know that more than 50% of the total US inventory never left the contininetal US. The main reason for this was thhat this enormous investment of airframes was dedicated to the provision of aircrew.

Moreover, both the US and CW systems were dedicated to producing aircrew of far superior quality and experience than anything the axis could produce. The allies spent a lot of time and effort in integrating new aircrew into existing air units. Genarally, it is a statistical fact that the majority of kills are made by no more than about 15% of the available flyers. The remainder, are to all intenses and purposes, targets, and padding to protect the main shooters of the formation. However, as a pilot learns the ropes, and grows in confidence, he gradually transforms from being a target, to being a shooter. With more experience comes the ability to expand by creating yet more units, and so the process continues. It is not good practice, incidentally, to concentrate too many shooters into the one formation....because you will not markedly increase the firepower of the unit with the over supply of aces, but you will increase the mortality rate of your experienced aircrew. The Germans found this at the end of the war. Faced with an airforce largely grounded, the germans decided to form a special group made up of super aces. This unit did not enjoy a markedly greater success rate, but it did mean that every pilot lost, was another ace also lost, something that the germans were in acutely short supply of by wars end. 

By comparison, the axis efforts at pilot training were quite abysmal. Ther was never enough fuel, or not enough trainers, never enough instructors, and new aircrew were often sent out to the front to learn the hard way, with the obvious effect that mortality rates amongst the new axis aircrew going through the roof. The axis air forces (ecen the italians) enjoyed an early advantage in having a greater proportion of expereinced flyers, but because of the poor training establishment supporting the front line forces, this advanatage was a wasting advantage. 
So, i dont know which type was the best trainer, but I do know which system was superior. The allies had things in the bag from the latter part of 1940 onwards


----------



## Graeme (May 3, 2008)

Elvis said:


> The C-47 was actually the DC-2, which was a slightly smaller aircraft.



Hi Elvis, again.

I get a different story from Yenne's "A Tale of Two Giants" (McDonnell Douglas).

The...

C-32
C-33 (One had a DC-3 tail, called the DC-2 and 1/2) 
C-34
C-38
C-39
C-41
C-42 

..were all commercial or military versions of the DC-2

The...

C-47
C-48
C-49
C-50
C-51
C-52
C-53
C-68
C-84

...were all commercial or military versions derived from the DC-3 airframe. The difference between the C-47 and DC-3 principally involved a lack of carpeting, soundproofing and interior detail. The door size was more than doubled which required structural strengthening. The C-47A upgraded to 24 volts to accommodate a conveyor-belt motor.

(Incidentally - small world, the C-44 was a Bf-108.)


----------



## Elvis (May 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> How do the german trainers compare to the Allied ones. The whole concept of the ideal trainer turns the per formance issue right on its head. What makes for a good trainer?


Another interesting question. I wonder how the German trainers compare, too.

On the subject of training procedures, that's been a debate of great conjecture for many years.
Here's all I've really ever heard on the subject.
The Americans used trainers that were easy to fly so as to nurture the trainees into being comfortable with the concept of flying.
As time goes on, the trainee moves onto higher performance aircraft, ultimately leading to the actual front line planes of the day.
The British docterne was to have a plane that was _simple_ to fly, but wasn't neccessarily "easy" to fly. They felt this kept the student alert and educated them quickly in what it took to keep the airplane in the air.
It's my understanding that the British trainee moved straight from the Tiger Moth into a "training version" of whatever aircraft they were to fly into battle.

Which way is better?
I don't think there is a "better" way, just two different ways of achieving the same goal.
It seems to me that the British skipped a couple of steps in their training (or the Americans added a couple?), combining steps into each step.
I've taught, what seems like, a million people in the "rigors" of doing my job (don't ask  ) and my opinion is, you show 'em what its all about and let 'em fly. 
Either they get it or they don't.

How the axis powers trained their pilots, I don't know. I don't think I've ever seen anything on that.




Elvis


----------



## Elvis (May 3, 2008)

Graeme,

Thanks for the lists.
Man, it looks like the Germans had more trainers than anything else!
Quite the impressive list.
Thanks also for clarifying the classifications of Douglas transport aircraft.
I swear I'd recently seen something that aluded to what I posted before, but you've got the list, so there ya' go.


Elvis


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2008)

Close Elvis. The sleeper transport version of the DC-2 was originally called the "wide body DC-2" which became the Douglas Sleeper Transport. The DST carried 14 passengers in the sleeper transport mode. The non-sleeper transport version, which had seating for 28 was called the DC-3.


----------



## Elvis (May 3, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Close Elvis. The sleeper transport version of the DC-2 was originally called the "wide body DC-2" which became the Douglas Sleeper Transport. The DST carried 14 passengers in the sleeper transport mode. The non-sleeper transport version, which had seating for 28 was called the DC-3.


Right. The "regular" airliner version of the DST (i.e., sans sleeping berths) was the DC-3 (maybe "became" is a better word to use?).
This was _basically_ a stretched version of the DC-2.


Elvis


----------



## evangilder (May 3, 2008)

Technically, it was more than a basically stretched DC-2, it pretty much was a DC-2. The DC-3 used about 85% of the DC-2 components. The additional 15% new is the main reason for the number change. Plus I thnk they were looking to distinguish the standard size DC-2 with the wide-body passenger liner.


----------



## Glider (May 3, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Another interesting question. I wonder how the German trainers compare, too.
> 
> On the subject of training procedures, that's been a debate of great conjecture for many years.
> Here's all I've really ever heard on the subject.
> ...



The CW started with the Tiger Moth and then moved on to more advanced aircraft such as the Miles Master, Harvard before going to normally older versions of operational aircraft.

Stirlings were often used as an introduction to the Heavy Bombers later in the war and earlier Wellingtons, Whitleys and Hampdens carried out this task. As I am sure you would expect, Spit II's for an introduction to fighters.
Strangely I haven't heard of Hurricanes being used as an introduction to fighters, they probably did but I haven't picked that up.


----------



## pbfoot (May 3, 2008)

Glider said:


> The CW started with the Tiger Moth and then moved on to more advanced aircraft such as the Miles Master, Harvard before going to normally older versions of operational aircraft.
> 
> Stirlings were often used as an introduction to the Heavy Bombers later in the war and earlier Wellingtons, Whitleys and Hampdens carried out this task. As I am sure you would expect, Spit II's for an introduction to fighters.
> Strangely I haven't heard of Hurricanes being used as an introduction to fighters, they probably did but I haven't picked that up.


They used the Hurricane and P40 over here as an OTU aircraft the following is a link where some old Tiffy pilots recall otu in the Hurricane 
Aerial Visuals - Theater Lobby


----------



## Kruska (May 3, 2008)

Elvis said:


> How the axis powers trained their pilots, I don't know. I don't think I've ever seen anything on that.
> Elvis




```

```

Hello Elvis,

Regarding Axis / Luftwaffe Flight Training

Despite the often mentioned opinion that the Luftwaffe’s initial success was based on its “well trained pilots” I see it quite differently. 

The entire subject on flight training was never captioned by the Luftwaffe Leadership; one of the main reasons was its neglect regarding the selection and sourcing of “qualified” flight instructors, a thoughtful plan that defined the demand of needed pilots in regards to a developed air force strategy, and the Flight schools themselves.

The only existing fighter flying school was closed down in Spring 36 in order to transfer the personal into frontline squadrons which were supposed to demonstrate Luftwaffe power during the Rhineland occupation. The school was only reactivated in March 1939. The newly formed 2nd fighter school was depleted of its personal in order to fill up the frontline ranks during the Czech crisis.

Due to the massive buildup of the Luftwaffe and the future development of the war the tendency to deplete the flight schools of its valuable instructors was a common practice throughout the entire war.

So it weren’t really well trained pilots from a fresh pilot pool, but rather experienced pilots and flight instructors drawn away from their possibility to create and sustain new well trained pilots, that gave the Luftwaffe an early edge over its even more poorly trained or tactically obsolete enemy air forces. (France had very well trained pilots with an average of 225 flying hours but a miserable tactical layout) still they made the Luftwaffe suffer a 25% loss of its force.

Another big negative factor was the Nazi doctrine that race was predominant above everything; as such the psychological test for air cadets was abolished in 1942 since it would have placed scientific evaluation, mathematical and rational based conclusions above the believe of having morally and racially superior pilots.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that many of the pilots could not cope with the stress factors from 1943 onwards and that many squadron or wing leaders were placed in command without having the necessary psychological qualification. 

Besides this the Luftwaffe had more or less no dual control frontline fighters on which the cadets could have collected experience as the US pilots did via its (OTU’s) or the Commonwealth’s (BCATP). Even the Luftwaffe’s Ergaenzungsstaffeln (OTU’s) were pressed into action and thus sustaining again losses and depleting the numbers of flight instructors or half-way trained new pilots.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Elvis (May 4, 2008)

Kruska,

Thank you for that informative and well-written overview of Luftwaffe pilot training.
It sounds similar to the Japanese flight training program.
The jist I've always picked up on was that the American flight training "rotation program" was quite innovative for the time, although it boggles my mind that no one ever thought that up sooner, because its such a simple idea.
You'd think that it would've been started around 1915 or '16. But then, that was a different war, too.
...and maybe that's a good thing for us that they _didn't_ incorporate that in their programs.
Who knows how much longer the war could've been stretched out, or how that would've affected the outcome of some the battles.

----------------------------------------

Evangilder,

I think we're both saying the same thing.
Your last post outlined _why_ wrote that the DC-3 was basically a "stretch DC-2".
Good call on the wider body. I'd forgotten about that.




Elvis


----------



## Kruska (May 4, 2008)

Elvis said:


> The jist I've always picked up on was that the American flight training "rotation program" was quite innovative for the time, although it boggles my mind that no one ever thought that up sooner, because its such a simple idea.
> 
> Elvis




```

```

Hello Elvis,

The US where the only wargoing nation that from the very beginning strongly empathized on the flight training of its pilots, and using a training and evaluation program very similar to its unique or typical American approach of mass production techniques. Therefore the US IMO had the best overall pilots during WW2 and maybe until today.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2008)

Kruska said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...


I beg to disagree.
In what manner was was US training superior to that of the BCATP?


----------



## Kruska (May 4, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I beg to disagree.
> In what manner was was US training superior to that of the BCATP?




```

```

Hello pbfoot,

The RAF averaged about 70 flight hours on frontline a/c, in 1942 whilst the US boys spend already 120 - 160 hours at OTU’s by that time. Tedder had forwarded/demanded an upgraded training plan already in 1934, however BCATP got only started after the war began 17.12.1939, it wasn’t till end of 1940 till the installations were ready and as such could only present results at the frontline from 1942 onward. As such it took Britain 8 years (respectivly 3 years) to come up to a level which the USAAF already managed to attain after 1 year.
The loss rate without combat cause was at less than 0.5/1000 flHours for the USAAF during the entire war, and even in 1944 the 8th recorded less than 1.8/1000flHours. 
Unfortunately I do not have the RAF figures but maybe you could help me out on this.

Most essential would also be the availability of trainer a/c which was partially a problem for the RAF till 42. Interesting is therefore the ratio of the USAAF orders in regards to % of trainers build to all military a/c.

1939 1940 1941
Sept. Dec. March Juni Sept. Dec. March Juni Sept. Dec.
30% 30% 34% 42% 47% 52% 57% 61% 61% 60%

Below would be the desolate figures of the Luftwaffe

Ratio of trainer a/c to total production 1937-1944

Year: 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
Source: LW 24,2% ?. 23,3% 18,2% 9,0% 7,0% 9,2% 9,1%
Source: USSBS ? ? 13,4% 12,3% 7,5% 7,5% 8,1% 7,7%

So taking all the above into account and adding the bonus of the USAAF having far better trainers and combat a/c then the RAF  the result would certainly be in favor for the US boys.

Sorry but somehow the columns start to get messed up after I paste them. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2008)

I find that kind of funny since the training sylabus as far as flying instruction has changed little over the years and the training in Canada is still continuing to this day for many NATO countries . 
Take a look at the US aces and see how many were trained in Canada. 
The fact being most of the initial instuctors in the BCATP were American


----------



## Kruska (May 4, 2008)

Hello pbfoot,

Sorry but I wouldn’t know very much if not to say nothing about Canada’s pilot training efforts during WW2. However the US pilots had a far higher flying/hours experience in frontline fighters then the RAF; despite common regulations?
As for NATO in Goose Bay, I can ascertain you that the practical flight experience, during training and after being stationed in active squadrons (Combat Ready Status) of present Luftwaffe pilots is nowhere compared to US or RAF Pilots.

During my stay in Oklahoma we took 2-3 hour sessions in C-141 and C-5a flight-simulators at random per day, the allowance for the Luftwaffe at Euro NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) in Sheppard AFB, was at most 8h in total.

Only the Waffenlehrerlehrgänge "Tornado" at Holloman AFB which are held 2 x 6 month per year, enable or clear for active frontline duty in crisis areas - such as presently Afghanistan - which certifies not even 12% of all present Luftwaffe fighter units.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## pbfoot (May 4, 2008)

NATO training is carried out at Moose Jaw , Portage le Prairie and Cold Lake 
NFTC
Goose was just lo level training and I must admit the best I saw there was the simulated airfield attacks by the F4's and Tornados of the GAF amazing having 4-8 aircraft coming from all directions at 50'agl at high speed crossing the field at the same time.
Were you in the Goose?


----------



## Kruska (May 4, 2008)

No I wasn’t in Goose Bay, it is just that some Luftwaffe pilots told me about 2years ago that they felt very inferior to their comrades from the RAF, US and French Air force during "Maple Flag 39" at Cold Lake.

Thanks for the NFTC link. good stuff - worlds best!!!

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Old Wizard (May 4, 2008)

Kruska said:


> No I wasn’t in Goose Bay, it is just that some Luftwaffe pilots told me about 2years ago that they felt very inferior to their comrades from the RAF, US and French Air force during "Maple Flag 39" at Cold Lake.
> Regards
> Kruska



That reminds me of a total shock my son and I had while fishing Touchwood Lake [it's in the Cold Lake / Lac La Biche area]. It was early morning on a calm sunny day when 2 F-15s flew over at about 500ft and scared the crap out of us. Then we noticed an AWACS flying high overhead and saw several other fighters pass over the lake during the day...but not right over top of us like the first 2.


----------



## Kruska (May 4, 2008)

Hello Old Wizard,

could that be the reason why we (Luftwaffe) decided to shift low level flight manouvers to Canada? 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2008)

The Luftwaffe also uses a base in Arizona as well.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2008)

Kruska said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



We talked this over in another thread and as usual it is a.) hard to define 'Best' - but certainly easy to define 'Most'. In 1938 when Roosevely signed the Civilian Pilot Training Program Act there were only about 13,000 USAAF airmen and pilots, growing to 26,000 by Sept 1939 and 354,000 by Dec 1941.

By the time the CPTP was wound down 435,000 Pilots had graduated from Primary School at 1,132 different universities and 1,460 flight schools - and as such were accepted into USAAF Basic Training.

Looking over my father's logbook, he was entirely USAAF trained starting with his first flight Feb 7, 1941 and graduating from Aviation Cadet Training in June 1941 as a 2nd Lt with ~ 345 hrs. His total time was not unusual for pre-Dec 1941 cadets. By Pearl Harbor day he had 750 hours and was an IP at Goodfellow airfied, TX.

He became CO of the #3 BFTS - 302 AAFFTD on 2 January 1943 - a major training program for Brit and Commonwealth pilots at Miami OK. At that time he had 1430 hrs. When he finally escaped Training Command he got 100 hours in B-26, then escaped again to Fighters and got 250 hours more in P-40 before 'escaping again' to 8th AF.. where he got 3 hours at Goxhill, flew his first mission on D-day and scored his first kill - on 6 June his logbook time was 2100+ hours. At war end he had 2500+ hours

This is unusual, but an example of many of the best pilots out of Cadet Training were ASSIGNED as Instructor Pilots which is another reason US had very good training.

Last but not least was weather across entire southern half of US - very few bad flying days.


----------



## buzzard (May 4, 2008)

Kruska,

I'm surprised to find out that Luftwaffe pilots felt inferior...I guess the 'experten mystique' remains very powerful. Is it due to financial reasons that their training is not up to par with other Western nations? And is this recent, or has it been the norm since the Luftwaffe was rebuilt after the war?

I remember Hartmann's bitterness about the 'too-early' acquisition of the F-104, but wasn't Canada's loss rate even higher? We certainly had the space to train in, and we lost over half of our Zippers to accidents (this is from memory...)

Anyone here know much about WWII Russian aircrew training? I get the impression it wasn't that great. Perhaps too much emphasis on dialectical materialism, and not enough ACM...


----------



## wingnuts (May 4, 2008)

A bit more on the DC2 - DC3 discussion. The DC3 was bigger over all including wingspan, as can be seen from the photos of the CNAC DC2 1/2 in the attached URL:

CNAC's Famous DC-2 1/2

A good story and adds the the DC3/Goony Bird/Dak legend


----------



## Old Wizard (May 4, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Old Wizard,
> 
> could that be the reason why we (Luftwaffe) decided to shift low level flight manouvers to Canada?
> 
> ...



Maybe so that your aircrews could have fun scaring Caribou over Labrador and sport fishermen in Alberta.


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

drgondog said:


> We talked this over in another thread and as usual it is a.) hard to define 'Best' - but certainly easy to define 'Most'. In 1938 when Roosevely signed the Civilian Pilot Training Program Act there were only about 13,000 USAAF airmen and pilots, growing to 26,000 by Sept 1939 and 354,000 by Dec 1941.
> 
> By the time the CPTP was wound down 435,000 Pilots had graduated from Primary School at 1,132 different universities and 1,460 flight schools - and as such were accepted into USAAF Basic Training.
> 
> ...



Hello drgondog,

Thanks for some very interesting info regarding your Father and the flight-experience. About 350,000 pilots within 2 years at an average of 250 F/h +, amazing and it proofs the mastership of American mass production techniques.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Kruska,
> 
> I'm surprised to find out that Luftwaffe pilots felt inferior...I guess the 'experten mystique' remains very powerful. Is it due to financial reasons that their training is not up to par with other Western nations? And is this recent, or has it been the norm since the Luftwaffe was rebuilt after the war?
> 
> ...



Hello buzzard,

During the 60's and 70's defence budget restrains were very minor, and the Luftwaffe was quite a match or on equal terms with the USAF, even though the totalling amount of USAF piloting hours and experience was still far more then that of the Luftwaffe - not to forget Air National Guard - were the Luftwaffe has no equivalent and wartime experience like Korea and Vietnam.

Especially since the reunification of East and West Germany considerable Budet cuts (50%) have quite a negative impact on anything - even though the GAF is still preserving its basic needs - but basic doesn't stand for needed or required.

More then half of "the missile with man" lost for the CAF?? that sounds very frightening since the causes of those crashes have a reasonable explanation for the GAF which do not quite apply to the CAF.

The Luftwaffe lost about 30%, 269 out of 916 F-104G's and 112 pilots

Regards
Kruska


----------



## pbfoot (May 5, 2008)

Actually it was less then half 46% of CF104 crashed but please don't over look the underlying reasons .
They flew and specialized in the lo level stike mission an inherently dangerous mission.


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

Hello pbfoot,

So the flight training of the CAF might not have been so good after all ? 

Okay very sorry, it is not in my intention to make fun of those CAF pilots who crashed or got killed.

What makes me wonder is that the CAF or RCAF did have a continuous follow up on technological developments and new fighter types after WW2, which the GAF did not have.

As such the “jump” after 10 years from Mach 0 to Mach 1.0 to Mach 2 was actually the reason for overstressing the abilities of the F-104G crews.
My uncle loved the F104G, he’s quite famous for certain “stunts” within the 60’s but he was a WW2 veteran with thousands of flying hours and did his PPL in Switzerland shortly after WW2.

Did the CAF jump from Sabres straight to the CF104 or wasn’t there the CF100 and CF101 Voodoo in between

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Elvis (May 5, 2008)

Old Wizard said:


> Maybe so that your aircrews could have fun scaring Caribou over Labrador and sport fishermen in Alberta.


Hey Ol' Wiz, is 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEVBJ9qpeHs_ kinda what you're talking about?





Elvis


----------



## buzzard (May 5, 2008)

pbfoot is correct. Slightly less than 1/2 of the CF-104s crashed. I checked out DL Brashow's, "Starfighter" (Fortress Publ./91) and he has the disposition of all 238 CAF '104s listed. Here's the cause of loss stats:

Struck Ground/Ice/Sea : 31
Mid-Air Collision : 8
Mech. Failure : 36
Foreign Object Damage : 8
Bird Strike : 13
Loss of Control : 12
Write Off* : 3
Hanger Fire : 2

38 CAF pilots lost their lives in the CF-104. Given the inherently dangerous nature of their mission and the unforgiving handling characteristics of the Zipper, I think our pilots performed admirably. 

* No reason is given for the 'write-offs'

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2008)

I worked with people involved in the 104 program while I was at Lockheed. One thing to look at and Kruska brought it up was there wasn't a good transition trainer for the F-104. Basically you were going from an F-86 and jumping into twice the machine. It wasn't until the T-38 where this got corrected. Additionally I know Kelly Johnson was against the low level mission of the F-104. Although it turned out to be a great mini nuclear bomber, he always felt employing it in a low level strike role defeated its mission.

I don't have all that stats in front of me but the F-104 went from having the highest attrition rate in NATO to one of the lowest. The Spanish AF flew the aircraft for I think 6 years and never lost one! At the same time the highest fighter attrition rate in NATO? The F-100. I think it had 4 accidents for every 100,000 flight hours. In the end I think the F-104 was about half that.


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

FLYBOY: but the F-104 went from having the highest attrition rate in NATO to one of the lowest.

Yes I am also aware of this statistc.

According to early GAF pilots, the real widow maker of the GAF was the F-84. 
Of the 508, F-84F Thunderstreak and RF-84F Thunderflash Luftwaffe jets, 93 crashed and 43 pilots were killed, even though this a/c was only in service for 10 years, in contrast to the F-104G with 28 years in service.

Oh boy, we really drifted of from best a/c of WW2







Regards
Kruska


----------



## buzzard (May 5, 2008)

We have deviated from the topic, but I'm gonna make one more 104 post...

Kuska,

The CF-100 and CF-101 pilots were trained as interceptor pilots. I don't know their loss rates. The initial group of future RCAF CF-104 instructor pilots were given a 20 hr course in the F-100 before taking on the '104. The first lead-in trainers were the CT-133 (T-33) and the Sabre. Later the CF-5A took on that role.

Your comment about the accident rate of the F-84 is similar to Canada's experience with the Sabre. In 12 years of service, there were 282 Category 'A' accidents, with 112 killed. Yet, nobody ever called the Sabre a 'widowmaker'...

JL


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

Hello Buzzard,

looks like the Me262 wasn't so bad after all  

Regards
Kruska

P.S. just a little try to get back into the WW2 direction of this thread.


----------



## pbfoot (May 5, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello pbfoot,
> 
> So the flight training of the CAF might not have been so good after all ?
> 
> ...


When the GAF initially were having a tough time with the 104 I believe Galland or Hartman asked the RCAF to do an inventory of the operating procedures which were found wanting in both maintainence and airmanship. They soon switched over to the RCAF doctrine . I have an article on this some where in non dewey system archives . As for the 104 it worked in a dangerous enviroment low and fast and 31 hit the cumulous granite and and 13 were birdstrikes


----------



## JugBR (Jun 26, 2008)

for dogfighter, my vote is for the "reich´s defender", the Bf 109.

it´s not the faster, the most powerfull, the most armoured, people says was unconfortable to pilot, other says cant turns left so good as turns right (or vice versa, dont know). but, she starts service before spanish civil war and retired almost a decade after germany surrended. 

fought in east, in west and also in the pacific. the great luftwaffe aces with 100+ kill flew the Bf 109, they loved that plane and they knew how to get its best performance.

i like very much the mustangs, hurricanes, spitfires, yaks and jugs(this one for obvious reasons), but the Bf 109 is a true legend !


for bomber, my vote is for the flying fortress.

i admire those who flew inside a b-17 over german homeland, these guys was true heroes. 

for ground attack, my vote is for Jug

because its the jug, thats it ! dont needs explanation, its the fliyng panzer, its our baby !


----------



## starling (Jun 26, 2008)

before ridiculing my choice,take a good look see around.she was used in many theatres ,for more jobs than i can remember.lovely aircraft is the vickers wellington.yours,starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

*before ridiculing my choice,take a good look see around.she was used in many theatres ,for more jobs than i can remember.lovely aircraft is the vickers wellington.yours,starling*


Starling

I wouldnt have picked the wimpy, but I dont think any of the smarter ones here are going to ridicule that choice. The wellington gave excellent service, from the start of the war to the finish


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 18, 2008)

*1st. place - Chance Vought F4U Corsair* - to reconcile fighter bomber
2nd. place - Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - to reconcile fighter bomber
3rd. place ex aequo - Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate 'Frank', Focke Wulf Ta 152 - best Axis fighters ever

4th. place ex aequo: Grumman F6F Hellcat, Boeing B-29 Superfortress, Kawanishi N1K2-J Shiden-kai 'George', Mitsubishi J2M Raiden 'Jack' and North American P-51H Mustang


----------



## Elvis (Aug 18, 2008)

Wasn't the Vickers Wellington the one with the lattace-work frame that was supposed to make the plane's fueselage so strong?



Elvis


----------



## wingnuts (Aug 19, 2008)

Yes, called Geodesic Structure.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2008)

Too much testosterone here kiddies - overall the best airplane of WW2 plain and simple...


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 21, 2008)

Fighters
The P51 was the best American 
Best RAF was the Spitfire, boring choice but it was good.
The KI84 was the best Japanese
Best German the Dora 9
Best Italian the Macchi 205
Russians the Yak 3

Bombers
UK, Lancaster
US, B29
German, HE177, once they actually got it to stop being suicidal
Russia, TU 2
Japan, P1Y

Oh, yes i agree with above comment the C47 was a great aircraft, did alot of donkey work for not much credit.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 21, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Too much testosterone here kiddies - overall the best airplane of WW2 plain and simple...



Agreed; flew in every theatre of the War, hauled all kinds of stuff everywhere, and was even armed after the War (AC-47).


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

hey SoD Stitch, what are those nazi planes on the lower end of your post? sorry just couldnt resist


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 27, 2008)

ratdog said:


> hey SoD Stitch, what are those nazi planes on the lower end of your post? sorry just couldnt resist


You mean the ones on the airfield getting over run????


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

no the other one the one on top are some c-47s


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 27, 2008)

ratdog said:


> no the other one the one on top are some c-47s


Oh, the4 C-47s scattering troops a over the countryside among other things....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 27, 2008)

I think he means the a/c in SoD's signature pic.

Which are Do 335's Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Waynos (Sep 27, 2008)

The two fighters? They are Dornier Do 335's. They are also German, not Nazi, aircraft are not allowed to be members of political parties.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 27, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think he means the a/c in SoD's signature pic.



oh


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

true and sry a i was a little ticked when i wrote it and wasnt thinking 
those are weird looking things does it have two engines or something?


----------



## Waynos (Sep 27, 2008)

Yes one at the back and one at the front, very novel. And very fast.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2008)

ratdog said:


> true and sry a i was a little ticked when i wrote it and wasnt thinking
> those are weird looking things does it have two engines or something?



Fortunatly only 38 were built. There is only one left in the world and it is at the NASM in Washington.

Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Elvis (Sep 28, 2008)

Fastest piston / propeller powered airplane of WWII, wasn't it?
I seem to remember it being credited with a top speed of, like, 470-475 MPH.



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 28, 2008)

I think it was more or less even with the Ta 152 and Fw 190D-13 (slightly faster) in terms of speed. 

And then there's the P-51H which could make ~480 mph in clean configuration. But it never reached combat. (about equal to the D-13)

The fastest of the war (and for a long time after -till "Rare Bear" iirc) was the XP-47J at 507 mph at 32,000 ft.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 28, 2008)

So it wasn't the fastest in production?

You might want to tell this guy, then.

"_The Dornier Do 335 was the fastest piston-engine aircraft of the War. With a puller engine in the nose and a pusher engine in the tail, the Do 335 could reach a speed up to 470mph._"




Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 28, 2008)

In testing the P-51H exceeded 480 mph. (production models with racks fitted and at full combat weight would probably have been more in the range of 460-470 mph at critical altitude and WEP)


----------



## Elvis (Sep 29, 2008)

Ok, I'll give you that one.

According to "jbaugher", it did enter production, but did so, so late in the war, it never saw combat.
(North American P-51H Mustang)

Impressive speed numbers, though. Apparently faster than the 335.
This site lists a top speed for the "H" as [email protected] ft., although it does not say whether that was ascertained during testing or in combat.
This site lists the 335's speed as [email protected] ft. (6500m), although it too does not mention whether that was ascertained during testing or in combat.

(NOTE: JMHO, but I think, generally, we'd have to assume "tested" for any airplane's listed top speed. It seems people might be a bit too preoccupied with trying to stay alive to worry about such things, under "battle conditions")

I'll give you a litle pat on the back for doing the research, anyway. 




Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Sep 29, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Ok, I'll give you that one.
> 
> According to "jbaugher", it did enter production, but did so, so late in the war, it never saw combat.
> (North American P-51H Mustang)
> ...



The 487mph was a North American Aviation test with no external racks and no fuselage tank fuel. Represents 'about as good as it could be in an interceptor role'.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 29, 2008)

Yeah, that's kinda what I figured.

Thanks.




Elvis


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 27, 2008)

So here i go again with the feline among the birds but and i might add i have only read the tail of the thread so be gentle with me untill i catch up but wouldn't one of the major parameters of best constitute versatility and under these considerations woudn't the DH 98 in its various configurations have to stand tall as an obvious choice. It could do any job virtually from that of the Spitfire' to that of the Flying Fort. and before i hear the cry of impossible consider that the Cookie 4000lbs Bombs that were carried by these A/C all the way to Berlin are the same weight as the bomb load of a B-17G. it was employed as a Ship hunter, a Train Hunter, a Gestapo Hunter, Pathfinder Night fighter, Ground Attack, High altitude precision bomber ,Night Bomber escort and the list goes on anyone got any other A/C that was expected to perform so many varied roles?


----------



## D.H firemoth (Nov 1, 2008)

What about the tampest its a very fast prop. aircraft for one engine and has good role and turn rate so theirs my vote


----------



## D.H firemoth (Nov 1, 2008)

or the p-38


----------



## renrich (Nov 16, 2008)

Not postulating that the Zeke was the best WW2 AC but am rereading Lundstrom's second book about USN fighters in the early going in the Pacific. When the Guadalcanal invasion was begun(summer 1942) the IJN had no carriers in the vicinity so sent landbased bombers to attack the Allied invasion fleet. The escorting A6M model 21s, operating from landbases had to fly 560 miles, mostly over water, fight and return that same 560 miles. Lundstrom mentions by comparison the distance from eastern England to Berlin is 460 miles. Whew! It is fortunate that the LW did not have the Zeke during the BOB.


----------



## Amsel (Nov 16, 2008)

I really think that Focke-Wulfe put out a superior fighter. Especially the Dora. Though it would be interesting to see how the Bearcat would have done.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2008)

renrich, the Zeke was a good fighter in many respects, truly...but it's one shortcoming was virtually no protection for the pilot. The Japanese counted on it's superiority for protection, thus never providing armor or fuel tank protection, making it one of the most flammable aircraft of the war.

In the ETO, it probaly would not have survived very long as a front-line machine.

IMHO, I think that the Ki-61 Hein was far superior to the Zero in many respects, having better speed, armor protection, firepower, RoC and a range of 1,120 miles...and looked remarkably close to the He100 and M.C202 in design.


----------



## renrich (Nov 16, 2008)

GG, I am aware of the early Zeke's shortcomings. It not only lacked armor and self sealing tanks but it's armament was deficient compared to the Wildcat and it had high speed handling problems. However, and this is a stretch because the A6M was only barely operational in the summer of 1940, but it could have competed nicely with the Spits and Hurricanes during the BOB. Neither British AC had all self sealing tanks, I believe, and neither had an edge in overall performance and a fighter that could escort the bombers and have an hour or more to stay and fight instead of ten or fifteen minutes would have made it very difficult for the British. Later model A6Ms had armor, ss tanks and improved armament but the airframe and engine could not keep up with the additional weight, unlike the Spit. A combat radius of 560 miles was unheard of, for a single engined fighter, in early 1942 and would translate to far more than a range of 1140 miles. For instance the F4F4 Wildcat had a yardstick range of 800 miles, but from a carrier had a combat radius of around 175 miles. The Zeke 32, with better performance than the 21 had 20% less range.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2008)

renrich, good points, all of them...interesting idea, Zero versus Spit...

Aparently, there were confrontations between the Spitfire and the Zero, but not until after 1943. The Spitfire was faster, but at a disadvantage in a turning fight.

In the Far East, late in '43, 136 Squadron encountered a flight of Japanese bombers escorted by Zeros, shooting down 12 enemy for the loss of a single Mk VC.

The report didn't specifiy the number of enemy fighters downed or the Zero's type, though.


----------



## renrich (Nov 16, 2008)

GG, I think you will find, somewhere on this forum a long discussion about encounters between Spits and Hurris, probably in 1942 and Zeke 21s, to the embarrasment of the British AC, both over Australia and in the CBI. In the Guadalcanal campaign, the USN was still facing IJN veteran pilots. Later, the quality of the Japanese pilots was inconsistent and apparently the quality of the Japanese army pilots was never up to IJN standards. Even in the last stages of the war, the Zeke was a formidable adversary when well flown. During the time the F4F in it's various models was the principal USN fighter in the Pacific it pretty much fought the Zeke to a draw because of better armor, superior ruggedness and better tactical doctrine. It is not generally known but the F4F3, once it was modified for wartime, was a better match for the Zero than the F4F4. In fact it was not until the FM2 came out that the performance of the F4F3 was matched.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 16, 2008)

By the BoB pretty much all the operational Spitfires and Hurricanes had been modified with armor and self-slealing tanks. (stock on those than in production) This was also the case for most of the German a/c. At this time the nose tank was non self-sealing on the Hurricane (later modified as well) and the Spitfire's top nose tank never got self sealing. (it did get increased armor, iirc at the BoB there was already a fireproof bulkhead between the cocpit and the fuel tank)

Bf 109E's would have had enough range with drop tanks, and while these had been sucessfully tested earlier it wasn't until the tail end of the BoB that the drop tank eqipped E-7's were available. 


It should also be noted that the Spitfire, Hurricane, and Bf 109 all had similar aileron control issues to the Zero, with the Spitfire later fitted with metal ailerons to improve this. 
I believe this was due to the use of wire-pully type controls and partially to the type of ailerons used, I think most of the US aircraft had push-pull rod operated controls, this is what gave the Fw 190 shuch good aileron control)


Another note is that the Zero's structure was excedingly light and not very resistant to battle damage, however the biggest killer (as for pretty much any WWII aircraft) was fire and the unprotected tanks were a major vulnerability. (even if they didn't catch fire, a leaking tank could mean not making it home, especialy with the ranges the Zero operated)

Several other have said this before, but fuel tank protection (particularly sealing and fire supression) should have been the foremest improvement necessary for the Zero, moreso that pilot protection as they represented a much larger vulnerable area. (plus the engine provided a large amount of frontal protection for the pilot)
Historically the later zeros got armor long before they got self sealing, the later fuel tanks were devided into multiplke smaller cells with fire supression added to limit vulnerability, but only the very late models had self sealing.

The IJA's Ki-43 II did get modest pilot armor and rudementary self sealing tanks, but these were not all that effective and the Ki 43's structure was even lighter than the Zero's.


----------



## renrich (Nov 17, 2008)

Another observation I would like to make about WW2 AC I recently picked up after rereading Lundstrom's second book about USN fighter operations. His books are extremely well researched and detailed. On first reading it is possible to get confused as to what is going on because of the different VFs, VTs, VBs, VSs, carrier attack planes, carrier bombers, etc. Just finished rereading about the Battle of the Eastern Solomons and it dawned on me that many of the IJN AC in the battle, especially the recon and observation planes shot down were not victims of the VFs ( F4F fighters) but rather were splashed by VSs and VBs ( SBDs.) Apparently, many of the SBD drivers were frustrated fighter pilots and quite adept at aerial gunnery and were very aggressive to boot. The SBD mounted two 50 cal MGs in the nose and during the battle they accounted for at least a half dozen IJN recon planes, mostly the big four engined flying boats, several Val dive bombers and perhaps damaged a Zeke or two. Earlier, at the Coral Sea, SBDs were detailed as part of the CAP at low altitudes trying to intercept IJN VTs. It seems that a well flown SBD could be a pretty fair air to air weapon. The TBF at Eastern Solomons was also used as a fighter by a few especially aggressive pilots with a single 30 cal in the nose. Says more for their guts than brains. However, one can see that if your home and place to land at sea is about to be sunk, one could use extreme measures.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> It should also be noted that the Spitfire, Hurricane, and Bf 109 all had similar aileron control issues to the Zero, with the Spitfire later fitted with metal ailerons to improve this.
> I believe this was due to the use of wire-pully type controls and partially to the type of ailerons used, I think most of the US aircraft had push-pull rod operated controls, this is what gave the Fw 190 shuch good aileron control)



Wire pulley? It's actually a "cable."

Control cable actuated flight control surfaces are the cheaper way to go during the design process and in some cases are easier to install and operate. Push/ pull rods provide a more positive control authority but can easily force an over stress condition through out the airframe due to the rigidly of the system. It’s also easier to inspect and maintain out in the field. Depending on the aircraft, rigging could be a problem as documented by some Fw 190 maintainers, but I have a hard time with that. Control cables also stretch if they are over stressed and a properly placed "BB" can ruin your day with control cables.

My 2cents...


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 17, 2008)

interesting tidbit is that the Brit aircraft had 2 cables in case one was damaged whereas the Germans used a single cable


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> interesting tidbit is that the Brit aircraft had 2 cables in case one was damaged whereas the Germans used a single cable


I think it depended on what aircraft you were talking about.


----------



## renrich (Nov 18, 2008)

Flyboy, have read your comments about the safety of tricycle landing gears and have a question. My limited experience is with a 172 but have talked recently with my brother who is getting some tail dragger time in prep for buying a Stearman and he remarks about the difficulty of landing same. Question is, the design of almost all single engine WW2 AC because of engine placement and size of engine would not allow for the nose gear to say nothing of added weight and complexity. Was there a solution to those issues?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2008)

renrich said:


> Question is, the design of almost all single engine WW2 AC because of engine placement and size of engine would not allow for the nose gear to say nothing of added weight and complexity. Was there a solution to those issues?


IMO not really - also remember that there were still a lot of dirt and grass fields and in that environment the tail dragger was better ground handling. Unless designers took an approach like Bell did with the P-39, designing many WW2 aircraft in a tri cycle configuration would have been difficult.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 18, 2008)

The Me 309 had a nose wheel under the engine. Messerschmitt Me 309 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (though there were setbacks due to ironing out problems with this configuration)


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 19, 2008)

Interesting fact about the SBD's pilots, I didn't know that. I guess they were washed out fighter pilots or something?


----------



## renrich (Nov 19, 2008)

There was quite a bit on interchange between VT, VSB and VF pilots. My suspicion is that most of the Navy pilots wanted to be VFs. I believe that Swede Vejatsa (spelling) was an SBD driver and then switched to fighters. Boone Guyton was a dive bomber pilot before getting the job as chief test pilot on the Corsair. A number of the AVG pilots were former USN VSB pliots.


----------



## r2800doublewasp (Nov 21, 2008)

P-51D!

The F4U-4 was good too.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 22, 2008)

renrich said:


> There was quite a bit on interchange between VT, VSB and VF pilots. My suspicion is that most of the Navy pilots wanted to be VFs. I believe that Swede Vejatsa (spelling) was an SBD driver and then switched to fighters. Boone Guyton was a dive bomber pilot before getting the job as chief test pilot on the Corsair. A number of the AVG pilots were former USN VSB pliots.


Every pilot wants to be a fighter pilot whether they admit to it or not , . Its like asking a driver if he wants to drive a Plymouth Caravan or a Ferrari .


----------



## tessamik (Nov 22, 2008)

The Boeing B-29 Superfortress, it ended the war in the Pacific.


----------



## ummonk (Nov 22, 2008)

This one is easy. The Yak-9. It helped the Russians fight off Germany. That was critical for the Allies.

Still doesn't look as cool as the Corsair though...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2008)

ummonk said:


> This one is easy. The Yak-9. It helped the Russians fight off Germany. That was critical for the Allies.
> 
> Still doesn't look as cool as the Corsair though...



And it can't carry 2 dozen airborne troops or a few jeeps either.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 23, 2008)

Wow, I didn't know the C-47 had carried cargo that size.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Wow, I didn't know the C-47 had carried cargo that size.


8)


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 23, 2008)

What a pain in the butt that must have been. It looks like you'd have to do a hundred point turn just to get it in!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2008)

No ****! I knew it could carry it, but it still was not very practical.

In that sense the Germans really were onto something with the Arado Ar 232 and its rear loading ramp.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 23, 2008)

The Ju 290 and Ju 252 also had rear loading ramps.


----------



## Soren (Nov 24, 2008)

Yes the German transport a/c such as the Ju-290, -252 Ar-232 could carry much more and a lot more easily, but they were also larger. 

The Ar-232 was the most revolutionary transport a/c though.


----------



## Soren (Nov 24, 2008)

As for the C-47 being the best a/c of WW2, I still don't agree with that, probably the most important a/c but not the best. It was truly a great a/c, very reliable, but the reason I wouldn't call it the best is because there were a/c which could do what it could do better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> As for the C-47 being the best a/c of WW2, I still don't agree with that, probably the most important a/c but not the best. It was truly a great a/c, very reliable, but the reason I wouldn't call it the best is because there were a/c which could do what it could do better.



Could do better, sure, but were they as cost effective to operate, built in the same numbers, showed the same longevity, were as easy to fly and operate, had the potential for multi-use and design growth and have a better safety record?


No.


----------



## ccheese (Nov 24, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Could do better, sure, but were they as cost effective to operate, built in the same numbers, showed the same longevity, were as easy to fly and operate, had the potential for multi-use and design growth and have a better safety record?
> 
> No.




Amen to that !!

Charles


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 24, 2008)

I don't think you can have a single "Best" aircraft, you can have the best in a role or multi role, but no aircraft can do everything, even the multi role aircraft such as Ju88 and Mosquito had limits in most of their roles. Also the timeframe needs to be considered, what was "Best" in 1939 or 1941 would probably be outclassed by 1944/45. 

The DC3/C47 "Goonie Bird" may not have been the Best transport but it was probably one of the most useful ..... 

.... and my favourite


----------



## Soren (Nov 24, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Could do better, sure, but were they as cost effective to operate, built in the same numbers, showed the same longevity, were as easy to fly and operate, had the potential for multi-use and design growth and have a better safety record?
> 
> 
> No.



Well FLYBOYJ there can be many reasons for that, such as the discontinued production of excellent designs because of a war lost. 

The C-47's production numbers and years in service are impressive, there's no doubt about that, but the same can be said about other WWII a/c, such as the 109 for example, the most successful fighter design of the war with over 33,000 built and serving as frontline fighter well into the 50's (Which is quite astonishing considering the replacement rate esp. fighters undergo). 

As for cost effectiveness, well I don't have the numbers for each a/c but I doubt the C-47 was much better than most other a/c of WWII. But perhaps you have some numbers ?

And as to multi-use design growth, the C-47 was hardly at the forefront really. I mean how much did the design change over time ? Not much.

Now don't get me wrong the C-47 is great design, one of the best of WW2, but it wasn't THE best or the most revolutionary of the war. Now if you were to say it was the most important a/c of the war, then I could somewhat agree, without it the allies wouldn't have won.

As to which a/c was the overall best of the war, I think that is impossible to answer as most a/c from both sides were carrying out their own vital roles at which they were the best in their air arm.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 24, 2008)

The C47 had something no aircraft from Germany could dream of it was a simple and not overly engineered aircraft. In the RCAF/CAF they designed a replacement for it it was called a DHC 4 Caribou a good aircraft in its own right with a fair combat record in Viet Nam . The Dak out lived the Caribou in the RCAF/CAF . That says a great deal .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well FLYBOYJ there can be many reasons for that, such as the discontinued production of excellent designs because of a war lost.


It is what it is, Lufthansa flew DC-3s and I'm sure they wold of continued to do so had Germany won the war, but then again "what ifs" don't make history.


Soren said:


> The C-47's production numbers and years in service are impressive, there's no doubt about that, but the same can be said about other WWII a/c, such as the 109 for example, the most successful fighter design of the war with over 33,000 built and serving as frontline fighter well into the 50's (Which is quite astonishing considering the replacement rate esp. fighters undergo).


It is impressive for one of the best fighters made IMO, but by the end of the war the -109 was facing obsolescence as you well know and "if" the war continued we would of seen less and less of her - the fact that she was produced in the cold war years was because of a broke dictator (Franco) who had cheap resources at his disposal. And we won't forget about the Avias that went to Israel, but I think there too yo had the Czechs who had the airframes available and the Israelis who would of grabbed anything at the time.


Soren said:


> As for cost effectiveness, well I don't have the numbers for each a/c but I doubt the C-47 was much better than most other a/c of WWII. But perhaps you have some numbers ?


The number are UNKNOWN because the Japanese and Russian built their own and although the Russians had a license, they probably built way more than they were licenced to. Additionally the design led to a whole series of Ilyushin transports with their roots directly attributed to the C-47. But as far as official numbers, over 10,000 C-47s, 487 by the Japanese and 4937 by the USSR that we know about. Oh yea, there were about 600 plus plain old DC-3s built as well.


Soren said:


> And as to multi-use design growth, the C-47 was hardly at the forefront really. I mean how much did the design change over time ? Not much.


Actually it did, aside from numerous engine mods including turbo props, installation of modern avionics the fact that the basic design remained the same but allowed for much internal growth was one of the reason why the design lasted so long - the cockpit layout, placement of instruments and little things like shaping the flap handle like the shape of a flap or the shape of a wheel on the landing gear handle, all innovations that were made mandatory by regulation through out the world thanks to the C-47/DC-3. 


Soren said:


> Now don't get me wrong the C-47 is great design, one of the best of WW2, but it wasn't THE best or the most revolutionary of the war. Now if you were to say it was the most important a/c of the war, then I could somewhat agree, without it the allies wouldn't have won.


It was revolutionary because the simplicity of the systems combined with the airframe design gave it a very "harmonized" design where rather than being the fastest or biggest, but all the systems and functions worked in harmony, and the key word here is "worked."


Soren said:


> As to which a/c was the overall best of the war, I think that is impossible to answer as most a/c from both sides were carrying out their own vital roles at which they were the best in their air arm.


They did but when you look at the over all impact, the contribution to the war effort, the versatility and ultimate longevity, there's no other aircraft that comes close.


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 24, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The C47 had something no aircraft from Germany could dream of it was a simple and not overly engineered aircraft. In the RCAF/CAF they designed a replacement for it it was called a DHC 4 Caribou a good aircraft in its own right with a fair combat record in Viet Nam . The Dak out lived the Caribou in the RCAF/CAF . That says a great deal .




The Caribou is still in use with the RAAF, the DC3/C47s were finally retired in the early 90s


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2008)

Well FLYBOYJ I guess we have to agree to disagree on this.

The DC-3 didn't evolve any more than most other a/c, and I doubt it was anymore easily adapted than most other a/c either. The thing that made the DC-3 a success was mainly that it was reliable cheap, something which often seems to win out over superior performance technology.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The C47 had something no aircraft from Germany could dream of it was a simple and not overly engineered aircraft. In the RCAF/CAF they designed a replacement for it it was called a DHC 4 Caribou a good aircraft in its own right with a fair combat record in Viet Nam . The Dak out lived the Caribou in the RCAF/CAF . That says a great deal .


 
Well I'm not just comparing it to German a/c, I'm comparing it to all a/c.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well FLYBOYJ I guess we have to agree to disagree on this.


No problem


Soren said:


> The DC-3 didn't evolve any more than most other a/c, and I doubt it was anymore easily adapted than most other a/c either.


Wanna bet?





















It lended it self for modification for specific roles in an efficient and cost effective manner. Other aircraft could be modded the same but again its a matter of an "harmonized design."



Soren said:


> The thing that made the DC-3 a success was mainly that it was reliable cheap, something which often seems to win out over superior performance technology.


And you actually spelled out why this aircraft is not only the greatest aircraft to emerge from WW2, but probably the greatest aircraft of all time.

BTW - I show about 200 still flying operationally.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2008)

The pictures don't prove anything though, many a/c were reengined numerous times with no problem. And as for rockets, well the nr. of a/c whihc used this with success is impossible to count, the Germans often used it on their transport a/c when hauling extreme loads off of short airfields. 

Also what is greater about the DC-3 compared to the C-113 Hercules for example ? I don't see anything.

Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No. By comparison the Ju-290 for example could act both as a long range heavy bomber, transport, passenger reconnaissance a/c. I'm not saying the Ju-290 is a´better a/c, but it could fulfill more roles. The downside is the far higher complexity of the Ju-290.


----------



## Juha (Nov 25, 2008)

Soren
licence built DC-3s, that is Soviet Li-2s were one of the main types of ADD, Soviet long range bomber force. Other main types of ADD were Il-4 and B-25 Mitchell. So there were many more DC-3 bombers around than Ju-290s.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> .
> 
> Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No. By comparison the Ju-290 for example could act both as a long range heavy bomber, transport, passenger reconnaissance a/c. I'm not saying the Ju-290 is a´better a/c, but it could fulfill more roles. The downside is the far higher complexity of the Ju-290.



Can you prove that the C-47 could not be used as a bomber? I am sure they could rig bombs under the wings...

Besides the C-47 was used as an attack aircraft. Ever heard of the AC-47. Sure it was not used that way in WW2, but in Vietnam it was. 

I do not think you can say that the Ju 290 was able to be used in more roles. Please list all the roles that the Ju 290 could perform and all the roles that the C-47 could perform. Lets put this one to the test. Do not take me wrong, I am sure the 290 could perform more roles. It was a bigger aircraft and capable of performing more roles. I just don't think you give the C-47 eneogh credit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> The pictures don't prove anything though, many a/c were reengined numerous times with no problem. And as for rockets, well the nr. of a/c whihc used this with success is impossible to count, the Germans often used it on their transport a/c when hauling extreme loads off of short airfields.
> 
> Also what is greater about the DC-3 compared to the C-113 Hercules for example ? I don't see anything.


Do you mean C-130 probably the 2nd greatest aircraft ever built?

Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No. By comparison the Ju-290 for example could act both as a long range heavy bomber, transport, passenger reconnaissance a/c. I'm not saying the Ju-290 is a´better a/c, but it could fulfill more roles. The downside is the far higher complexity of the Ju-290.[/QUOTE]But did the Ju 290 last after the war even though there were many combatants capable of collecting up the tooling and building her? NO. And you answered your own question - complexity, and I could bet dollars to donuts the DC-3 was a far easier aircraft to keep in the air as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2008)

Ah just found some information here that the Portugese Airforce used the C-47 as a bomber during the Portuguese Colonial War.

Now I am not saying, it would have been a good bomber. It however could be adapted for use as a bomber.

Never say never, Soren...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 25, 2008)

Did you guys miss Juha's post on the use of the Russian Li-2 as a bomber? (in that context it was a considerably more capable bomber than the Ju 52 had been used as)

Also there was the B-18 (from DC-2) and B-23 developed from The DC-3. THe B-23 was a decent medium bomber for the time, though inferior to the B-25 and B-26.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2008)

Nope I missed that, sorry. Juha is correct however. The Li-2 was a DC-3, and them being used as bombers is another example.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Did you guys miss Juha's post on the use of the Russian Li-2 as a bomber? (in that context it was a considerably more capable bomber than the Ju 52 had been used as)
> 
> Also there was the B-18 (from DC-2) and B-23 developed from The DC-3. THe B-23 was a decent medium bomber for the time, though inferior to the B-25 and B-26.


The B-18 actually competed against the B-17 and although eventually found inferior, it was widely used as a trainer, same with the B-23. Both aircraft were used in ASW operations and I think the B-18 was one of the first aircraft to carry MAD equipment in the ASW role.


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

Well nearly every twin engined a/c of the war could be used as a bomber (Th Mosquito for example), but not nearly to the extent of a/c like the Ju-290, I mean the DC-3 had ZERO defensive armament. 

The DC-3 was designed as a transport passenger a/c and performed best in these roles, as a bomber it would've been miserable. Slow, none to poor defensiev armament, very light bomb load etc etc, add to that the operating alt which would've been very low as a bomber because of the much added weight of the bombs armament.


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do not think you can say that the Ju 290 was able to be used in more roles. Please list all the roles that the Ju 290 could perform and all the roles that the C-47 could perform. Lets put this one to the test. Do not take me wrong, I am sure the 290 could perform more roles. It was a bigger aircraft and capable of performing more roles. I just don't think you give the C-47 eneogh credit.



Ok this confuses me abit, what is your position exactly ? 

I mean you say _"I do not think you can say that the Ju 290 was able to be used in more roles"_ and then you say _"I am sure the 290 could perform more roles. It was a bigger aircraft and capable of performing more roles."_

I agree that it was capable of performing more roles more effectively than the DC-3, no doubt about it. The Ju-290 was used as a long range heavy bomber, heavy transport, large passenger a/c recon plane. The DC-3 was used as transport passenger a/c during the war, that's it. After the war it was used in numerous other roles.

The Soviets experimented with some DC-3 designs, but none proved successful besides the original.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well nearly every twin engined a/c of the war could be used as a bomber (*The Mosquito for example*), but not nearly to the extent of a/c like the Ju-290



Huh?  The Mosquito was designed as a bomber.

And the Li-2 could be armmed with a 12.7 mm UBK dorsal turret and 3 flexible 7.62 mm ShKAS. Up to 4x 250 kg bombs could be carried underwing on racks. (for short range missions, half that for longer range)

And as to its operational use (in addition to Juha's previous statement)

Lisunov Li-2: the Soviet DC-3, reviewed by Scott Van Aken


> The aircraft was also modified when it entered Russian Air Force service to act as a bomber and night attack aircraft, so bomb bays were incorporated along with external bomb racks and an upper fuselage turret for defense. This turret was also incorporated into the cargo/passenger versions as the PS-84/Li-2 had to operate in a hostile environment, often without fighter cover.
> ===
> Also included are numerous war-time exploits of these planes as they often had to carry out bombing raids or cargo missions without fighter escort. PS-84/Li-2s were the main equipment of several bomber regiments as there was little in the way of a pure cargo requirement until much later in the war.





FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-18 actually competed against the B-17 and although eventually found inferior, it was widely used as a trainer, same with the B-23. Both aircraft were used in ASW operations and I think the B-18 was one of the first aircraft to carry MAD equipment in the ASW role.



The B-23 was also the first operational US bomber with a glazed tail turret.


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

The B-23 isn't the DC-3, they are quite different.

As for the Russian use of the Li-2 as a bomber, it was no success, and 4x 250 kg bombs, heck a Fw-190 can carry more! By comparison the Ju-290 could carry up to 8 tons of bombs. And the defensive armament of the Li-2 was like I said, miserable. 

The DC-3 simply couldn't be used as an effective bomber, so that really can't be counted as one of its capabilities. You are seriously overrating the a/c.

The Ju-290 could by comparison operate highly effectively in all of its roles, esp. as a heavy bomber and transport a/c.


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

Now if being the best is all about being simple cheap, then I think the Ju-52 deserves a mention. This a/c was also used well after the war for a variety of roles. But I wouldn't consider it the best a/c of the war or ever to fly at all.


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

Btw, what makes the DC-3 a much better a/c than the DC-4 for example ?


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

IMO the best WW2 a/c is the a/c which could substantially outdo each of it's main contempories in its field while being cheap simple to make. But then comes the question, was there such an a/c ?

The DC-3 was an important a/c, but it wasn't the best at anything. It was cheap, simple very dependable and could carry out a number of roles well, that's it.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Now if being the best is all about being simple cheap, then I think the Ju-52 deserves a mention. This a/c was also used well after the war for a variety of roles. But I wouldn't consider it the best a/c of the war or ever to fly at all.


That depends where you live , I'm sure aviation meant alot in Europe but it was nowhere near as important as it was in North America or Australia . The Junkers aircraft were well respected in the aviation communities


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Btw, what makes the DC-3 a much better a/c than the DC-4 for example ?


Simplicity. The DC-4 brought in a new era when airliners weren't operated on dirt and grass strips anymore. In the post war years the DC-3 was looked upon like the 737 or the A319/320 is today. It was perfect for short/medium routes and in the end was more cost effective to operate.


Soren said:


> . It was cheap, simple very dependable and could carry out a number of roles well, that's it.


And that's what made it "the best."


----------



## Juha (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren
Quote:” As for the Russian use of the Li-2 as a bomber, it was no success”

Again you have ready opinion on a/c on which you clearly only just heard. I’m not claiming that Li-2 was a good bomber, but at least it was used attacks against for ex. many Axis held cities.

Quote:” The Ju-290 could by comparison operate highly effectively in all of its roles, esp. as a heavy bomber and transport a/c.”

Can You enlighten us against what targets Ju 290s were used as highly effective heavy bomber? And I don't mean its use as a patrol bomber against shipping.

Allied didn’t have later in the war need to use converted/modified transports as patrol bombers because they could use versions (PB4Y-1 and Liberator GRs) of a good long range bomber, B-24, as patrol bomber before a dedicated long-range patrol bomber version, PB4Y-2 Privateer, was ready.


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

I've known about the Li-2 forever pretty much Juha, but I never considered it a bomber, and it wasn't either.

As for the Ju-290, the LW's emphazis on fighters and more defensive kind of war Germany was fighting at the time of the Ju-290's introduction meant it didn't get the chance to prove its worth in the heavy bomber role like the Allied bomber designs had plenty of opportunity to. But that doesn't take away the fact that it was excellent for the role, being well armed, fast being able to carry a very large loadout.


----------



## Juha (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren
Why then
Quote:” Was the DC-3 for example capable of acting as a bomber ? No”

if you knew that it was used by several regular bomber regiments on hundreds of bombing sorties over long period of time.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well FLYBOYJ I guess we have to agree to disagree on this.
> 
> The DC-3 didn't evolve any more than most other a/c, and I doubt it was anymore easily adapted than most other a/c either. The thing that made the DC-3 a success was mainly that it was reliable cheap, something which often seems to win out over superior performance technology.



It could well be argued that because the DC3 only basically needed more powerful engines to deal with the increased payloads, and instruments to deal with developments over the 70+ (and counting) years of operational use. Proves that it was the best aircraft of the war, it was right from the start and the nearest thing to perfect for its role you will find.
Its also worth remembering that it has always, and often still does tend to operate in the most difficult environments in the world from the Arctic to Deserts. Many designs have been mooted as being the replacement DC3 and none of them have come close.

The nearest WW2 plane that I can think of in these terms, minimum change and long life would be the Harvard Trainer. Again it was right for the job.

Re the Ju290 even if the aircraft had been put into post war production (and its a good point, if it was so good, then why wasn't it) does anyone seriously see it as still being in use?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Ok this confuses me abit, what is your position exactly ?
> 
> I mean you say _"I do not think you can say that the Ju 290 was able to be used in more roles"_ and then you say _"I am sure the 290 could perform more roles. It was a bigger aircraft and capable of performing more roles."_
> 
> ...



Yeah my post was worded a bit wrong.

What I am saying is this. You can not say that the DC-3 could not be used as a bomber. It was capable of it and was used as a bomber.

In the end the Ju 290 was a more capable aircraft. No denying it. They are two different kinds of aircraft though and to compare them is wrong in my opinion.

I am sure that in the end we would find that both were capable of performing the same duties. Just performing them in different capacities.

Transport
Cargo
Bomber
Observation/Recon

And due to longevitiy the DC-3 was able to be used as:

Attack
Electronic Warfare



Soren said:


> I've known about the Li-2 forever pretty much Juha, but I never considered it a bomber, and it wasn't either.
> 
> As for the Ju-290, the LW's emphazis on fighters and more defensive kind of war Germany was fighting at the time of the Ju-290's introduction meant it didn't get the chance to prove its worth in the heavy bomber role like the Allied bomber designs had plenty of opportunity to. But that doesn't take away the fact that it was excellent for the role, being well armed, fast being able to carry a very large loadout.



Since it did not prove its worth, it can not be in contention, nor can we consider it a heavy bomber.

Same logic as you give for the DC-3...


----------



## drgondog (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> I've known about the Li-2 forever pretty much Juha, but I never considered it a bomber, and it wasn't either.
> 
> As for the Ju-290, the LW's emphazis on fighters and more defensive kind of war Germany was fighting at the time of the Ju-290's introduction meant it didn't get the chance to prove its worth in the heavy bomber role like the Allied bomber designs had plenty of opportunity to. But that doesn't take away the fact that it was excellent for the role, being well armed, fast being able to carry a very large loadout.



Soren - your points are valid.. one of the reasons I don't do "best" debates very often is there is no framework to make judgements.

Having said that I think the DC-3/C-47 is one of the 'greatest' aircraft ever designed and bulit simply because it is providing value around the world 64 years after the last one was built.. but we can't say that for the Mustang, the Me 262, the Ju 290, the Spit, the Me 109 the B-29.

Kinda like the last one still flying gets some votes for "best".

IF it is one of the 'greatest of all time', it certainly is a candidate for best of WWII. If it is not a candidate for greatest of all time what would you nominate to place above the Gooneybird?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 26, 2008)

drgondog said:


> If it is not a candidate for greatest of all time what would you nominate to place above the Gooneybird?


Waiting for this reply


----------



## fly boy (Nov 26, 2008)

ok why not put in a poll of like the top 5 aircraft and then go from there?


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 26, 2008)

fly boy said:


> ok why not put in a poll of like the top 5 aircraft and then go from there?



Maybe a Top Ten would be even better, not only the best in an individual role but at a period in the war. 

Another way of looking at it is what would be the consequences if any particular aircraft had NOT been produced at the time.

In the early part of the war in the pacific the Mitsubishi A6M Reisen/Zero would probably be the best coupled with the experiance and training of the pilots but by wars end both were outclassed. 

Many others types only appeared or were used in large numbers towards the end ...as in the Me262, F4U Corsair etc.

...or in the case of German and Japanese aircraft appeared when resources were in short supply. as in the later Japanese fighters, other German jets and Arado232


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 26, 2008)

Juha, was the Li-2 used mostly for night time raids?




Soren said:


> The B-23 isn't the DC-3, they are quite different.
> 
> As for the Russian use of the Li-2 as a bomber, it was no success, and 4x 250 kg bombs, heck a Fw-190 can carry more! By comparison the Ju-290 could carry up to 8 tons of bombs. And the defensive armament of the Li-2 was like I said, miserable.



1,000 kg was more than 2x what the Blenheim could carry, and the same as the Do 17 and Ju 86. It's a decent load for a light bomber.




Soren said:


> Now if being the best is all about being simple cheap, then I think the Ju-52 deserves a mention. This a/c was also used well after the war for a variety of roles. But I wouldn't consider it the best a/c of the war or ever to fly at all.



I was thinking about bringing the Ju 52 up. It was the closest thing the Germans had to the C-47. It was simple, reliable, and cheap. Of course it was less capable than the DC-3/C-47, being slower, shorter ranged, and with a smaller payload. It was quite modern when it was introduced, but was half a generation behind the DC-3: an all-metal monoplane but with corugated skin construction and fixed landing gear. Also remember that it was originally a single engined design. It had quite a long life too, operating well into the '80s.

The DC-3 was a revolutionary aircraft at in its time; a fast, clean, stressed skin monoplane with "wide body" monoque fuselage, large freight doors, good range and pasenger capacity. It had very good handling and control characteristics and (despite being a taildragger) had good visibility from the cocpit on the ground. It was reliable, cheap, and easy to maintain and proved capable of competently adapted to many alternate roles.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 26, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Waiting for this reply



I respect Soren's opinion - and I have my own issues on defining a 'best'. 

The Gooney was one hell of an airplane after its all said and done - whether it is or was the best is pretty subjective - I just can't find another airplane to place above it without even trying to define 'roles and multi mission capability'

Just like the BUF - how do you define a better airplane for leading edge and total threat as durable as the B-52?


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

I really don't see the DC-3 as the best a/c ever, not at all. But like Bill correctly points out this is a very subjective matter. 

I mean the ones who vote for the DC-3 primarily vote for it because it was cheap, dependable has a long service record. And while certainly being a criteria in my book for "the best ever" it is but ONE of many. 

Many people also insist that the T-34 is the best tank ever, and again because it was cheap dependable, but again I must disagree. One reason being that on the *open* battlefield the T-34 proved to be nothing but gunfodder for German tanks, and that fact alone leaves it from taking 1st place in my book. 

But like I've always said, the DC-3 was a great a/c, one of the all time greats. But IMO it simply isn't the best a/c of all time, and the reason is that it wasn't tailored to do any role besides carrying passengers and hauling medium transport loads.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> But like I've always said, the DC-3 was a great a/c, one of the all time greats. But IMO it simply isn't the best a/c of all time, and the reason is that it wasn't tailored to do any role besides carrying passengers and hauling medium transport loads.


well what was better ? I realize its subjective but you I'm sure have a something in mind


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

To be honest I haven't got any a/c in mind for that title, too many a/c to choose between. I simply have to divide into categories before I can call anything "best".

There is no best at everything.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> But IMO it simply isn't the best a/c of all time, and the reason is that it wasn't tailored to do any role besides carrying passengers and hauling medium transport loads.


And that's all it had to do to be one of the reasons why the allies won WW2.

While I could agree with objectiveness in picking "the greatest" or "the best" of anything, the record of this aircraft cannot be denied. I think one needs to separate that there were aircraft larger and faster, and in some cases more advanced, but as stated earlier, a harmonized design coupled with a need placed this aircraft into greatness and its greatest accomplishment (aside from being a major tool in allowing the allies to win WW2) was probably allowing the average "Joe" all over the world to buy a plane ticket for a reasonable price and get to a destination safely and in comfort


----------



## Juha (Nov 27, 2008)

KK
yes, ADD was like BC most of the war a night bombing force.

Soren
Quote:” open battlefield the T-34 proved to be nothing but gunfodder for German tanks”

Now in 45 your gunfodder ended up in Berlin but German überpanzers in junkyards. So clearly T34 in real world was a bit better than mere gunfodder. Eastern front wasn’t one flat field either. Was T-34 the best tank in WWII, I don’t know, maybe not but it wasn’t mere gun fodder either. 

Juha


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 27, 2008)

One of the worlds oldes DC3s (an original not an ex C47) flew over my house yesterday, and it's not an unusual event. The ex Ansett Airlines DC3 VH-ABR "Kanana" was built in 1938, easy to tell from other DC3/C47s as it has the original Wright Cyclone engines.... a different note to the more usual PW Twin Wasps

JetPhotos.Net Photo » VH-ABR (CN: 2029) Ansett Airways Douglas DC-3 by Nathan Long

VH-ABR Douglas DC-3

Aviation Photos: VH-ABR

C-47 Skytrain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> Quote:” open battlefield the T-34 proved to be nothing but gunfodder for German tanks”
> 
> Now in 45 your gunfodder ended up in Berlin but German überpanzers in junkyards. So clearly T34 in real world was a bit better than mere gunfodder. Eastern front wasn’t one flat field either. Was T-34 the best tank in WWII, I don’t know, maybe not but it wasn’t mere gun fodder either.
> ...



On the open battlefield the T-34 was gunfodder, that's just how it was Juha. Fortunately for the Soviets however not all battles took place on te open plains, but there was a fair deal of close range combat as-well.

Oh and one more snide remark and I'll ignore you from now on, and this time it'll be for good.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 28, 2008)

Where is the snide remark? I see him only disagreeing with you...


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2008)

I think its fair to say that when the T34 and KV1 went into action, it was the PzIII 50L42 and PzIV 75 L24 that were the cannon fodder. Which is why they were such a shock

There is a tendancy to look at the later developments and there is no doubt that the Tiger I and Panther (once they were reliable) were better tanks mitigated to some degree by the T34/85


----------



## Juha (Nov 28, 2008)

Soren
Quote:"Oh and one more snide remark and I'll ignore you from now on, and this time it'll be for good."

Of course you can ignore me, we live in free world, thanks to Allied troops.

Glider
IMHO PzIII 50/L42 and PzIV 75/L24 were not cannon fodder either, but hard pressed. IMHO Soviet T-26s and BTs were cannon fodder when they faced uparmoured Pz IIIs and IVs.


But on aviation. IMHO at times Germans forgot that best is the worst enemy of good. Look for example Bomber B program. They could have replaced JU 88A by Ju 88B but thought that the improvement was not enough and continued Ju 88A production while waiting for Bomber B, only after it was cristal clear even to LW high command, that Bomber B program was failure, the improved Ju 88B was put in production as Ju 188.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Oh and one more snide remark and I'll ignore you from now on, and this time it'll be for good.



In no way, did he make a snide remark to you. He only disagreed with you. If you think that everyone disagreeing with you is making a snide remark, you better grow some thicker skin. In fact you might want to stay off the internet.


----------



## Glider (Nov 29, 2008)

Juha said:


> But on aviation. IMHO at times Germans forgot that best is the worst enemy of good. Look for example Bomber B program. They could have replaced JU 88A by Ju 88B but thought that the improvement was not enough and continued Ju 88A production while waiting for Bomber B, only after it was cristal clear even to LW high command, that Bomber B program was failure, the improved Ju 88B was put in production as Ju 188.
> 
> Juha



I have to agree with this statement. My understanding is that the He280 could have been ready some time before the Me262. I am not saying that the 280 was a better aircraft as clearly it isn't, but that doesn't mean that the 280 was a lemon.
He 280 aircraft in service could well have tipped the balance in the air battles of 1943 which in many way was the crucial year in the war.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Nov 29, 2008)

Glider said:


> I have to agree with this statement. My understanding is that the He280 could have been ready some time before the Me262. I am not saying that the 280 was a better aircraft as clearly it isn't, but that doesn't mean that the 280 was a lemon.
> He 280 aircraft in service could well have tipped the balance in the air battles of 1943 which in many way was the crucial year in the war.



You are wrong. It's a myth that the He 280 could've been operational in numbers earlier than the Me 262. Only on July 5th '42 did it fly with the production version HeS 8 A for the first time, only a week before the Me 262 flew with the Jumo 004. The flights showed that not only was the Messerschmitt superior performance-wise, it also was plagued by less problems, including the engines. The HeS 8 was a dead-end road. Forced to redesign the He 280 for the heavier Jumo they essentially lost any lead they still had over the Messerschmitt.


----------



## Glider (Nov 29, 2008)

I thought that the He280 first flew with the HeS 8a in April 41, not April 42 and with these engines it had a performance of approx 500mph. A performance not to be sniffed at in 1943 (allowing 2 years to sort any problems out). 
As mentioned before, I am not claiming that the He280 was a match for the Me 262 but it could well have changed the picture of the air war over the occupied areas of Europe. By the time the 262 came on stream in 1944 the war was effectively lost and it was a matter of when, not if, the Axis forces were to be beaten.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Nov 29, 2008)

It flew on may 30th '41, but only with the uncovered HeS 8, with performance limited to 550kp instead of 750 and very far from being production ready. They were very unreliable, especially the thrust control and essential work had to be done. The installation of the Jumo 210 on the Me 262 around the same time allowed it to keep pace in terms of airframe development.

So from spring 1941 to spring-summer 1942 the He 280 progressed very slowly (the design was limited), waiting for the engines to become reliable. During the same timeframe the Me 262 made considerably more progress, while their BMW was still as unreliable as the HeS.

When the flights in July '42 were conducted, the bottleneck of both design phases were still the engines. Only the Me 262 could accept virtually any of the German jets available without serious modification. The He 280 couldn't.

None of the German jets of the time would've been able to go into serial production before mid to late '43. By that time, all was in favour of the Me 262. The engines dictated the fate of these planes.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 29, 2008)

I agree on the He 280, perhaps if Heinkel had gone with a more conservative development of the aircraft and Ohain hadn't abandoned the earlier HeS 6 (which while somewhat bulky and heavy, was no larger than Whittle's engine and only moderately heavier then the HeS 8 at 420 kg) It was already producing nearly 600 kp thrust when it was abandoned in 1939 and had far fewer problems than the HeS 8. Additional improvements would likely be possible after aquiring Hirth.

They would have had to mount it mid-wing with a curved spar similar to the Meteor and it would have been wise to make more provisions for fuel capacity. Weapons capability was dencent, in fact the Me 262 had originally been designed for 3x MG 151 as well, though it proved capable of much more, the He 280 could probably have been upgraded to 2x MK 108 (possibly 3) without much trouble.


The biggest mistake Germany made with Heinkel's jet program, and possibly the biggest mistake of the German jet program, was the cancellation of the excellent HeS 30 (109-006) in 1942 when it was making great progress, considering the 004 and 003 "good enough" and assuming the latter two were nearing production at this time, while in reality they would both be stalled several times (particularly the 003).
Heinkel-Hirth instead was forced to move on to the "Class II" HeS 011 which developed somewhat slowly and was still in the prototype stage at the end of the war.

The HeS 30 was equal or superior to all other engines tested in the war in terms of specific fuel consumption, thrust/weight, and thrust/frontal area. And no individual engine beat it in more than one of of its categories. (the 19" diameter US J30 had better thrust/frontal area, the Nene had better thrust/weight, and I think one of the Metrovick engines had better SFC)

It may have been a case of both "good" and best, not being overly complex and would probably have been easier to produce then the 004 (probably not quite as quick to built as the 003) and could possibly have been ready for production before the 004B. (and certainly before the 003)


Had the Me 262 used it, it would have been ~1,600 lbs lighter (with same fuel and weapons load) had ~40-50% longer range, better engine handling characterisitcs, better speed, climb rate, and maneuverability (particularly roll), a shortened take-off run, and better low speed handling.



Then again you could also say that when the Jumo team (working on the conservative 004) merged with the Junkers jet team (with Adolf Müller) with several designs on the drawing board and a test bed engine constructed (what would later become the HeS 30 was the least complex of these), they should have dropped the conservative Jumo design and developed Müller's engine.


----------



## Glider (Nov 29, 2008)

Thank you both for the additional information, much appreciated


----------



## Soren (Nov 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In no way, did he make a snide remark to you. He only disagreed with you. If you think that everyone disagreeing with you is making a snide remark, you better grow some thicker skin. In fact you might want to stay off the internet.



Yes he did, he turned to calling it "your gunfodder" "Überpanzers", and I knew what he was insinuating and so do you.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 30, 2008)

Glider, another note on the Me 262 and He 280 is that while the He 280 was slightly smaller (length, wing span and area were very similar, though the He 280 had a significantly narrower fuselage) their airframes' weights were almost identical.

The emply weight of the Me 262 was much higher due to the engines (~750 kg for the 004B-4 compared to 380 kg for the HeS 8A) and the difference loaded weights was even greater due to the much greater fuel capacity of the Me 262.


----------



## Juha (Nov 30, 2008)

Soren
I'd say only this the term "your gunfodder " came from Your sentence

Quote:"on the open battlefield the T-34 proved to be nothing but gunfodder for German tanks"

and from the fact that there are lot of photos showing T-34s in Berlin in May 45. And there are also many photos showing Panthers and Tigers in junkyards in 45 and 46.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

Juha you tried to provoke me by rephrasing what I said and calling it my gunfodder, and then turning to calling German tanks for "Überpanzers". All in an attempt to provoke me. You might as-well admit it, cause it is far from the first time you do it.

Sure there were T-34's in Berlin in 45, there were afterall made roughly 70,000 during the war. But perhaps it is your opinion that because it was in Berlin in 45 then it was the best tank of WW2 ??? Interesting way of argueing for something I must say, not very objective, but interesting. 

As for German tanks being in Junkyards, sure, incase you didn't know it Germany lost the war. But besides that several countries continued to use their tanks until there were no more spare parts.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 30, 2008)

ENOUGH! Get this back on topic *now*, or be prepared to get an involuntary cooling off period. Got it?


----------



## fly boy (Dec 1, 2008)

wingnuts said:


> Maybe a Top Ten would be even better, not only the best in an individual role but at a period in the war.
> 
> Another way of looking at it is what would be the consequences if any particular aircraft had NOT been produced at the time.
> 
> ...


good idea wingnut if I could get some help in the next couple of days I could have a poll fourm set up


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 1, 2008)

I think there is no single best aircraft, rather there are a lot of them. A best aircraft has to provide its airforce with a unique capability. As such the DC3 is maybe the best cargo plane, but there were alternatives which could do what it did.

Some nominees from me:

-Ju 87; get's very little credit today, but was one of a kind when first deployed and the most devastating single type of plane in the campaigns of '39-'40 and early in Barbarossa. A lot battles were only won because of well placed Stuka bombs.

-Mosquito; basically the most cost effective plane of the war, it caused much more problems for the Luftwaffe than most of its larger English brothers did '40-'42, for a fraction of the price. Basically un-interceptable until late in the war.

-P-51; even though it's also the most overrated plane, it combined the advantages of P-47 and P-38 and expanded on them, again while being a lot cheaper. The best long range escort of the war.

-Me 262: too late, but basically half an era ahead of its adversaries at the time.

-A6M: the world's first carrier fighter that could keep up with the non-carrier fighers.


----------



## Juha (Dec 1, 2008)

Hello KrazyKraut
excellent list
I'd agree almost complety. Maybe A6M wasn't first but probably first built in significant numbers and with significant combat participation. For ex A5M was a pretty good when it arrived and some earlier biplane carrier fighters too. But as I wrote excellent list and well balanced opinion.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Dec 1, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> -Ju 87; get's very little credit today, but was one of a kind when first deployed and the most devastating single type of plane in the campaigns of '39-'40 and early in Barbarossa. A lot battles were only won because of well placed Stuka bombs.


IMHO the Ju87 was never very devastating in the early years. For instance, Dutch soldiers in 1940 were frequently attacked by these a/c, but hardly any died or were wounded while damage to equipment was minimal. The psychological effect of the stuka was another factor, though. When being confronted with the a/c for the first time, soldiers tend to panic. When soldiers got more experienced, the effectiveness of the stuka diminished rapidly and many were shot down.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 1, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello KrazyKraut
> excellent list
> I'd agree almost complety. Maybe A6M wasn't first but probably first built in significant numbers and with significant combat participation. For ex A5M was a pretty good when it arrived and some earlier biplane carrier fighters too. But as I wrote excellent list and well balanced opinion.
> 
> Juha


Thank you, Juha. I would agree with you that my statement on the A6M was maybe a bit too extreme, but it deserves to be in the list anyways.


Marcel said:


> IMHO the Ju87 was never very devastating in the early years. For instance, Dutch soldiers in 1940 were frequently attacked by these a/c, but hardly any died or were wounded while damage to equipment was minimal. The psychological effect of the stuka was another factor, though. When being confronted with the a/c for the first time, soldiers tend to panic. When soldiers got more experienced, the effectiveness of the stuka diminished rapidly and many were shot down.


Grebbeberg was one instance where Stukas played a significant role, routing a Dutch counter attack (or at least playing a significant role in that). During the invasion of Eben Emael they essentially filled the role that field guns normally would, knocking out several artillery emplacements and repelling a counter attack by Belgian forces. Their effort was essential and would be again so in France, giving pseudo-artillery support for quickly advancing troops. How many were shot down? I have no numbers at hand, but I remember losses were acceptable, especially considering they very often attacking without any escort.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 1, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> Grebbeberg was one instance where Stukas played a significant role, routing a Dutch counter attack (or at least playing a significant role in that). During the invasion of Eben Emael they essentially filled the role that field guns normally would, knocking out several artillery emplacements and repelling a counter attack by Belgian forces. Their effort was essential and would be again so in France, giving pseudo-artillery support for quickly advancing troops. How many were shot down? I have no numbers at hand, but I remember losses were acceptable, especially considering they very often attacking without any escort.



The main weapon on the Grebbeberg that the Ju-87 had was terror. Most inexperienced troops freezed during attack (as most Dutch soldiers were to be honest). There weren't many deaths counted for by the Ju-87 on the Grebbe or anywhere els in the Netherlands. AFAIK there was only one attack by the Ju-87 where they did do serious damage to equipment/men in the Netherlands and that was their attack on the French tanks near Zevenbergen. But it was a key victory, though. Without it, the german para's in Dordrecht would have never held their position.
The Stuka's didn't need any escort as the ML was virtually non-existant after May 10th.
As for numbers of losses, I'll have to get back to you on that. I recall a number of 26, but I'll have to check on that.


----------



## Boss Calamari (Dec 1, 2008)

Since this is just an open question I can say the Ki-43 was the best aircraft. It out turned it's enemies and was very light allowing it to climb fast. There are several variants of it, the best i think is the one armed with the two 12.7mm machine guns. I read somewhere that at least one had a gun of a strange caliber. It was like 23mm or 27mm i think. Anyway, sure it had didn't have as many guns as the hellcat but nevertheless it's two 12.7mm guns was sufficient. It's canopy is much more modern than that of the Zero's glassy greenhouse. It all comes down to experience. If one was inexperienced then the Hayabusa would be a falling flame but an expert pilot would be victorious and the king of the sky. Now that I'm blabbering I'd like to mention an account where a ki-27 shot down at least one p-40. I also read about a biplane warding off superior and numerous enemies on it's own during the war. These two pieces of evidence is sufficient in that we can acquiesce that experience was the major factor that made any craft superb during the war. I agree that the question is too bland.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2008)

Boss Calamari said:


> Since this is just an open question I can say the Ki-43 was the best aircraft. It out turned it's enemies and was very light allowing it to climb fast. There are several variants of it, the best i think is the one armed with the two 12.7mm machine guns. I read somewhere that at least one had a gun of a strange caliber. It was like 23mm or 27mm i think. Anyway, sure it had didn't have as many guns as the hellcat but nevertheless it's two 12.7mm guns was sufficient. It's canopy is much more modern than that of the Zero's glassy greenhouse. It all comes down to experience. If one was inexperienced then the Hayabusa would be a falling flame but an expert pilot would be victorious and the king of the sky. Now that I'm blabbering I'd like to mention an account where a ki-27 shot down at least one p-40. I also read about a biplane warding off superior and numerous enemies on it's own during the war. These two pieces of evidence is sufficient in that we can acquiesce that experience was the major factor that made any craft superb during the war. I agree that the question is too bland.


Oscar best fighter? It was eventually shot down in droves. While it was extremely maneuverable and could be a formidable opponent in the hands of a good pilot, it was light and unarmored and basically became cannon fodder. Even the most veteran pilots flying the Oscar eventually found themselves either few in numbers or dead. Sorry but I think the final outcome speaks for it self.

As far as all-round best aircraft - the Oscar wouldn't be in the top 50 from WW2.


----------



## Juha (Dec 2, 2008)

Hello Marcel
IMHO many times the greatest effect of bombing was moral, dispersed and dug in troops were difficult target for bombers, dive or level. So it was important to utilize the stunning effect of bombing as soon as possible. Ju 87 was more accurate than level bombers so it could be used nearer to own troops so those troops could be onto enemy sooner. Also in mobile operations it could be used more flexibly than level bombers.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Dec 2, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello Marcel
> IMHO many times the greatest effect of bombing was moral, dispersed and dug in troops were difficult target for bombers, dive or level. So it was important to utilize the stunning effect of bombing as soon as possible. Ju 87 was more accurate than level bombers so it could be used nearer to own troops so those troops could be onto enemy sooner. Also in mobile operations it could be used more flexibly than level bombers.
> 
> Juha



Very true Juha, the main weapon of the Stuka was it's terror. It was most effective when used against inexperience troops or troops with a low moral. But against more experienced and high moral troops, it's effectiveness diminished.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 2, 2008)

Boss Calamari said:


> 1. I can say the Ki-43 was the best aircraft. It out turned it's enemies and was very light allowing it to climb fast. There are several variants of it, the best i think is the one armed with the two 12.7mm machine guns. I read somewhere that at least one had a gun of a strange caliber. It was like 23mm or 27mm i think.
> 
> 2 Now that I'm blabbering I'd like to mention an account where a ki-27 shot down at least one p-40. I also read about a biplane warding off superior and numerous enemies on it's own during the war. These two pieces of evidence is sufficient in that we can acquiesce that experience was the major factor that made any craft superb during the war. I agree that the question is too bland.


1. Best of the war, questionable IMO, though I doubt there is any single 'best', not sure what it even means. The best a/c from purely technical viewpoint were 1945 types, naturally, but many earlier types had good success in their own time.

The Type 1 Fighter (as Japanese Army operating units almost invariably referred to it, later codenamed Oscar, operating units almost never used the Kitai numbers, eg. Ki-43) had considerably success early in the Pacific War. At that time Allied units didn't distinguish it at all from the Navy's Zero; later references to Allied success v the Type 1 are mainly from mid-1943 onward. In early 1942 the Type 1 achieved a several to one kill ratio (based on each side's loss accounts, not relying on claims) against Brit/CW/Dutch Buffaloes and Hurricanes, although it didn't do as well against AVG P-40's in fewer engagements. And the Type 1 in reality held its own against USN/USMC and USAAF a/c in the Solomons in early '43 and in New Guinea from late '42 respectively, again until well into 1943. The JAAF did really like the Type 1's manueverability, even when the Type 3 ('Tony') first came along in New Guinea, contrary to some Western accounts saying the Type 3 was immediately preferred. Experienced Type 1 pilots felt they could not be defeated by 'boom and zoom' tactics because they'd see the Allied fighter coming and turn into its attack, and sooner or later the Allied fighter would have to slow down and come into their preferred element (eg. how the US P-47 ace Neal Kirby was shot down in 1943). Now, did this always pan out? no, eventually Type 1's were typically bested by Allied fighters, but it performed well to at least fairly well in late 1941-mid '43.

Most Type 1's encountered until mid '43 had a single 12.7mm and a single 7.7mm. Francillon's description of Ki-43-I a, b and c with 2*7.7, one each, and 2*12.7 respectively isn't correct, almost all -I's had the mixed armament.

2. Type 97's ('Nate', Ki-27) shot down a number of P-40's. The AVG mostly met Type 97's and downed around 35 of them (per Japanese accounts) to around a dozen P-40's downed by Type 97's (AVG's accounts). However that lack of Type 97 success was the exception. Against the USAAF in the Philippines and DEI in 1941-42 Type 97's downed around 6 US fighters (P-35/P-40) and while the exact Type 97 losses aren't known in that case the P-40's didn't even claim 6 Type 97's. Likewise v the Hurricane in early months of the war the Type 97 downed 8 for the loss of 5, and v the Buffalo downed over a dozen for the loss of 1 or 2. IOW except against the AVG, the Type 97 units were competitive with the Allied opposition they encountered early in the war, and by mid '42 it was mainly phased out of front line service, though there were some later encounters (eg. P-38's engaged some Thai AF Type 97's in '44, USN F6F's encountered some Japanese ones in '44 also).

Joe


----------



## Juha (Dec 2, 2008)

I agree with Joe
and IIRC Ki-43s occasionally gave hard time even to Spit VIIIs over Burma in 44. 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Dec 2, 2008)

Hello Marcel
Quote:"Very true Juha, the main weapon of the Stuka was it's terror. It was most effective when used against inexperience troops or troops with a low moral. But against more experienced and high moral troops, it's effectiveness diminished."

Yes I agree. And of course it was effective against ships and bridges.

Juha


----------



## Boss Calamari (Dec 2, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oscar best fighter? It was eventually shot down in droves. While it was extremely maneuverable and could be a formidable opponent in the hands of a good pilot, it was light and unarmored and basically became cannon fodder. Even the most veteran pilots flying the Oscar eventually found themselves either few in numbers or dead. Sorry but I think the final outcome speaks for it self.
> 
> As far as all-round best aircraft - the Oscar wouldn't be in the top 50 from WW2.



I will restate that the good pilots flying this craft could take on any plane. A 16 year old pilot Yasuo Kuwahara downed f6fs and b-29s with his ki-43 and this was late in the war in 1944 to the last days. One doesn't have to be a veteran to champion, just need to spot the enemy to evade a diving pass. The Ki-43, a plane that remained in production to the war's end, should be in the top 50.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 2, 2008)

An interesting note on the opinion JAAF pilots had of the Ki-43 was discussed here: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18_

HoHun posted a transcript of it on post #32 of that thread.


It seems they weren't very confident of the Ki-43-I, but the Ki-43-II was a vast improvement.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 2, 2008)

Boss Calamari said:


> I will restate that the good pilots flying this craft could take on any plane. A 16 year old pilot Yasuo Kuwahara downed f6fs and b-29s with his ki-43 and this was late in the war in 1944 to the last days. One doesn't have to be a veteran to champion, just need to spot the enemy to evade a diving pass. The Ki-43, a plane that remained in production to the war's end, should be in the top 50.



The first thing that comes to mind is that the faster and higher energy US fighters like the F4U, P-38 and F6F did not have to 'slow down' if they had an initial altitude advantage - and they had a lot more firepower in the head on pass... continue through the head on pass, zoom climb back to altitude advantage and repeat step one.

Spotting the enemy is MANDATORY but not by and of itself an ACM benefit until the heavier fighters slow down and engage in the horizontal - same issue against Zero.

Last but not least is that the opponent in a dive has you in his 12 o clock position whereas the evading fighter breaking 180 degrees to meet head on is exposed to deflection shooting before engaging.

Lat question - which a/c do you suppose the IJA would prefer as a 'gift' if they could choose - 1000 F4U-4 or Ki-43II's??


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 2, 2008)

There would also be manufacturing and cost considerations when comparing the F4U to the Ki-43, differences in industrial capabilities.

However, given another Japanese aircraft (Ki-44 or Ki-61) to the Ki-43 would make more sense. (in which case I'd take the Ki-44 over the Ki-43 with its superior speed, firepower, and durability -and similar climb)

One point I do agree with is the canopy design. (also on the Ki-44 and Ki-84 and similar to the earlier Ki-27) Very good all around view with minimal framing and fairly sleek shape. (compared to the Zero's -which was pretty good by contemporary standards as well)
Nakajima managed to design a very good "bubble" like canopy using the flat and slightly curved glass/plexiglass available at the time. (highly curved examples that were available were prone to defects, limiting visibility worse than framing -as experienced on some British examples -ie Spitfire)

The closest western counterpart would be the Gloster Gladiator's canopy and the Brewster F2A.


----------



## wingnuts (Dec 2, 2008)

I thought Yasuo Kuwahara's book "Kamikaze" was mostly fiction? ... I may be wrong.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> An interesting note on the opinion JAAF pilots - Mr. Yohei HInoki Japanese Ace Pilot


Re: previous statement about general success of the Type 1 in 1941-42 except against AVG, Hinoki was WIA v. the AVG April 10, 1942 (his a/c hit 21 times but did not 'fall apart'). In its relatively few combats v. the AVG the 64th Flying Regiment seems to have lost 11 Type 1's while only downing 3 AVG P-40's. But again that was opposite to the Type 1's record v Hurricane and Buffalo in early 1942 (Type 1's downed 20 Hurricanes for 4 losses, and 14 Buffalo's for another 4 losses, in 1941/42 combats where both sides' losses are known). And as mentioned the Type 1 had its moments against even later Allied types in Burma. Hinoki claimed a couple of P-51A's in 1943 and the 311th FG's Allison Mustang operations over Burma ca. Nov 1943 only yielded about a 1:1 real ratio v Japanese fighters, mainly Type 1's. Hinoki was severly WIA though v. P-51A's, lost part of a leg and became and instructor at the Akeno Fighter School back in Japan. He fought one last battle v P-51's, D's of the 506th FG, in the Type 5 Fighter (radial 'Tony') July 16 1945.

F4U v Type 1 isn't a comparison of real contemparies. The Type 1 was competitive against the Allied fighters in met at least to the end of 1942 (though some of those in turn were earlier planes than the Type 1). Also, though there were limited cases of F4U v Type 1 (in 1943 in the Solomons), and it's not a well documented period from both sides, remember that we still tend to evaluate F4U fighter combat success in the Solomons ca. 1943, mainly v the Zero, based on Allied claims which we do know enough two sided examples to say were quite overstated (so were Japanese claims, but traditional Western popular perception is based mainly on Allied claims, not Japanese claims). 

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2008)

Boss Calamari said:


> I will restate that the good pilots flying this craft could take on any plane. A 16 year old pilot Yasuo Kuwahara downed f6fs and b-29s with his ki-43 and this was late in the war in 1944 to the last days. One doesn't have to be a veteran to champion, just need to spot the enemy to evade a diving pass. The Ki-43, a plane that remained in production to the war's end, should be in the top 50.


Yep - Bong also shot down around 10 Oscars as well.

I think Joe B summed it up pretty well.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 3, 2008)

!


----------



## Boss Calamari (Dec 4, 2008)

wingnuts said:


> I thought Yasuo Kuwahara's book "Kamikaze" was mostly fiction? ... I may be wrong.


It's claimed to be fiction by people who knew him, the author defends Yasuo with statements such as the people only knew him during school. I think it's possibly fiction or at least some parts are. I think the ki-84 is also a great aircraft, it just had the misfortune of having a lot of bad pilots and engine problems. I also would like nominate the b-29. It was advanced and has a successful history.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Best War Two Aircraft....

Oh boy. Tough. But here goes..

IMHO...

Fighter: FW 190, Mustang, tie. Absolute dead heat.
Ground Support: B-25 a whisker ahead of Ju-87, with the Stormovik a close third. (Yes, yes, the Il-2 was a design dog - but as the ******* Stalin said "Quantity is a quality all by itself) Why the 87? Here I'll put Stalin in reverse, and say that the quality (of the pilots) is a quantity all on its own.
Bomber: In spite of my great admiration for the Lancaster, it's the B-17 by a head...or should I say a nose...
Transport: Dakota. no other comes even close.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 5, 2008)

So, as far as fighters are concerned, we seem to be coming to a realization (at least over the past couple of pages of this thread) that maybe its not one single aircraft, but a small group that stand above the others.

Again, concerning fighters only, would we all agree that, over the entire war, the list is pretty much as follows?...

P-51
Me-109
FW-190
Spitfire
Zero

Yes? No?



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 5, 2008)

Elvis, on fighteres alone there have been several "best fighter" threads, the overal reasoning gets pretty complicated in such discussions, particularly given the abiguity of "best." (and what it means to be the best fighter, which devides into interceptor, dogfighter, escort, etc... as well as if best means most important, best performing, most effective, etc.)

There's a good poll http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-piston-engined-fighter-ever-7415-12.html which was organized after a preceding discussion thread to narrow down the choices. So you can see that there are a lot of variables even in such a discussion even when you narrow it to a single type.

In terms of most important to WWII of all types, it would have to be the C-47.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Agree Kitty. Air transport is the most underrated and overlooked aspect of air power. Yet...in many situations it is the winning hand.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Hey! I just noticed! Within 24 hours of joining I've been promoted to member!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Hey! I just noticed! Within 24 hours of joining I've been promoted to member!



You've been busy!


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 6, 2008)

Elvis said:


> So, as far as fighters are concerned, we seem to be coming to a realization (at least over the past couple of pages of this thread) that maybe its not one single aircraft, but a small group that stand above the others.
> 
> Again, concerning fighters only, would we all agree that, over the entire war, the list is pretty much as follows?...
> 
> ...



I know that there are threads for fighters specifically, but no. The Zero should not be in there and the Corsair should be in its place.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2008)

Why not the zero? It was a very good fighter in it's time (1941). That it was outclassed later in the war like many others should not count that much against it. The Corsair was relative late, so naturally it would be better than the earlier types.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

The operative phrase is "over the entire war". The design of the zero made in incapable of accepting upgrades: it was one of those planes that was maxed out from the Mk 1 model onwards.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> The operative phrase is "over the entire war". The design of the zero made in incapable of accepting upgrades: it was one of those planes that was maxed out from the Mk 1 model onwards.



You can hardly say that the P51 and the Corsair served over the entire war. If that is a criterium, the Spitfire and the Bf109 are the only candidates for fighters.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Good point Marcel. C'est vrai.


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 6, 2008)

Yeah, good point Marcel. Though, if you're willing to leave the confines of the war, the design of the Corsair did allow it to see mainstream service into the 50's.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2008)

Catch22 said:


> Yeah, good point Marcel. Though, if you're willing to leave the confines of the war, the design of the Corsair did allow it to see mainstream service into the 50's.



True, the Corsair was a great fighter.


----------



## Elvis (Dec 6, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Elvis, on fighteres alone there have been several "best fighter" threads, the overal reasoning gets pretty complicated in such discussions, particularly given the abiguity of "best." (and what it means to be the best fighter, which devides into interceptor, dogfighter, escort, etc... as well as if best means most important, best performing, most effective, etc.)
> 
> There's a good poll http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-piston-engined-fighter-ever-7415-12.html which was organized after a preceding discussion thread to narrow down the choices. So you can see that there are a lot of variables even in such a discussion even when you narrow it to a single type.
> 
> In terms of most important to WWII of all types, it would have to be the C-47.


I brought up the fighter plane thing because its all that was being mentioned (at least over the past couple of pages), with one or two mentions of the C-47.
It seemed to be more _immediate_ to how the present discussion had turned and also, there seemed to be some mentioning of a small group of fighters being "above" all the others, so my last post was coming from that direction.

...however, I do agree with you on the C-47. In fact, I think I stated just that, about 50 pages ago.



Elvis


----------



## Eurofighter (Dec 12, 2008)

In my opninion there is no such thing as the "perfect" fighter but there are many that deserve the title of "One of the finest fighters of WWII" mine being the P-51 Mustang.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2008)

Eurofighter said:


> In my opninion there is no such thing as the "perfect" fighter but there are many that deserve the title of "One of the finest fighters of WWII" mine being the P-51 Mustang.


This isn't necessarily about fighters - all round aircraft - best built, contribution to the war effort, longevity, legacy - the C-47 takes it....


----------



## p51#1wwii (Jan 26, 2009)

yea the FW190 kills man. aces fly it it pwns!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2009)

p51#1wwii said:


> yea the FW190 kills man. aces fly it it pwns!!!


Brilliant!


----------



## p51#1wwii (Jan 26, 2009)

i think the P-51 is pretty good.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2009)

p51#1wwii said:


> i think the P-51 is pretty good.



Ok...........


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 26, 2009)

p51#1wwii said:


> i think the P-51 is pretty good.



Ah! Reminds me of flyboy in his younger days . . . . . .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2009)

I do not know if I can take another one!?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do not know if I can take another one!?



Your Siggy will become the size of a whole page!


----------



## Marcel (Jan 27, 2009)

Time for the quotes thread, Chris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Time for the quotes thread, Chris



Yeah I need to get that thread going. Maybe this weekend.


----------



## swallow (Jan 29, 2009)

I'm interested to know if anyone can help with a comparison of flight characteristics between the WWII Typhoon 1b and the later Tempest V?

Thanks
Swallow


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 2, 2009)

ZOMG the P-51 was the best american.
Spitfire best english.
zero best japanese.
Fw-190 best german.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 7, 2009)

Well the Zero was probably the plane that scared the US the most. Perhaps because it was designed so differently from American fighters.


----------



## voteveg (Feb 8, 2009)

the 109 as it was still in service till the 60s


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2009)

voteveg said:


> the 109 as it was still in service till the 60s



And the C-47 is still in service today.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 9, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And the C-47 is still in service today.



So is the Piper Cub...


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 9, 2009)

I would vote for the *P51D* based on the fact that within approx. 9 months of it's introduction into the ETO the Luftwaffe was effectively destroyed...by Mustangs. The P51 also allowed the US 8th AF bomber raids to have the full effect desired, and after the P51 was introduced bomber crew casualties plummeted. If i could choose only one fighter from WWII to build an airforce with, it would be the Mustang (2nd place would be the P38 for it's sheer versatility).


----------



## Taildragger Pilot (Feb 11, 2009)

Marcel said:


> So is the Piper Cub...



Because I flew one last week (my preferred plane, esp off grass). And because nearly all US WW2 guys soloed in them.

Wherever you land in one (esp at fly-in of some sort), in ones and twos, guys in their 80s will walk up quietly and stare. If I have the time or the fuel, I will offer to take them up. They usually decline (is it me? ), but I usually get some good stories out of it.

It's very cool and a privilege.

The only semi-downer is that to start the Cub, somebody needs to hand-prop the airplane. Not hard but you do need to be somewhat agile. Get ready to leave and one of these guys always offers to "prop" me. Hmmmm. 1) Yer my hero. 2) I don't want to insult you. 3) I don't want you to lose balance and trip into my propeller.

It's an issue. Serious.


----------



## Watanbe (Feb 11, 2009)

The C-47 without a shadow of a doubt, without solid logistics there cant be victory! 

Honourable mention to the PBY Catalina for being the workhorse of so many nations, in many different roles!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

Taildragger Pilot said:


> Because I flew one last week (my preferred plane, esp off grass). And because nearly all US WW2 guys soloed in them.
> 
> Wherever you land in one (esp at fly-in of some sort), in ones and twos, guys in their 80s will walk up quietly and stare. If I have the time or the fuel, I will offer to take them up. They usually decline (is it me? ), but I usually get some good stories out of it.
> 
> ...



I just put back together a 46 Cub. I hand prop it all the time by myself.


----------



## Taildragger Pilot (Feb 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I just put back together a 46 Cub. I hand prop it all the time by myself.



Me too, if there is no one around (FAA could be anywhere). I suppose we do the same thing: if cold, tie-off the tail to something. If hot, straddle the right gear and pull her from behind. Such a natural motion doing it that way. I have done it that way cold (primed) when on grass, but don't tell  

I had a semi-close call propping a plane years ago and so maybe I am over diligent... Ok, short reminiscence coming on, please indulge:

In college I lived in/above the terminal of the university's airport. Lineman on weekdays (gassing school trainers then putting em in the hangars) arprt manager on weekends in exchange for a few bucks but FREE rooming above the terminal/main hangar. Whole thing was built by the Navy in 42 (initial and secondary training) and the upstairs had been classrooms, now 3 huge bedrooms. Here is the cool part: on the SW corner of the building was my room and above it, via a wall ladder and trapdoor, was the old control tower. All glass and a windows-level platform with a mattress on it. Could see into the next state and I used to sometimes sleep up there. It was heaven and I knew it. Thanks for the indulgence, but it does set the scene....

So there was this guy who hangared a Mooney there. I liked him since he used to give me stick time in it (he was an avionics rep). One day he calls ahead that he is in a big hurry and can I pull the plane for him. He shows up and the battery is @ about 10% because he left something on (Master Off? , I dunno but true). He REALLY has to go, can I prop him? If I recall it was 225-245 hp. He says he has seen it done (he knows my switch)....

1) Hands flat on blade would not do it; I had to curl fingers around the trailing edge. Hmmm, 3-blade prop. Seemed like a bad time to curl fingers...2) Needed the leverage, so had to grab it pretty far out. This is a big prop, so now I am pulling through a pretty big arc. 3) As I am sure you know, Moonys (Moonies?) sit very low. So pulling this thing far out on the blade, through a big arc (finishing very low), fingers behind, use lots of ass and end up upper body below horizontal. Up to letting go of the blade, this is all part of some sort of forward flip/somersault, which you have to immediately arrest and go backwards. We tried it a few times mags cold and no prime and it's a damn good thing. End of story was got it started, but anyone who hand-props a full size Mooney is an idiot.

Well, that was off topic enough. Sorry.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

Taildragger Pilot said:


> Me too, if there is no one around (FAA could be anywhere). I suppose we do the same thing: if cold, tie-off the tail to something. If hot, straddle the right gear and pull her from behind. Such a natural motion doing it that way. I have done it that way cold (primed) when on grass, but don't tell
> 
> I had a semi-close call propping a plane years ago and so maybe I am over diligent... Ok, short reminiscence coming on, please indulge:
> 
> ...



Great info! I've hand propped a C-182, tough but do-able.

As far as the Feds - we discussed this on another site. There's really nothing preventing you from handproping by yourself - "unless you operate the aircraft in an unsafe manner." Considering the aircraft doesn't have a starter and there's never been an AD, Service Bulletin or TC addendum to mandate 2 people to start a Cub, this is one argument I'd go toe-to-toe with a PMI if he ever showed up at my local airport, providing I didn't fall on my butt while starting the airplane and have it plow into a hangar!

With that said I have two methods - as you said, stand behind the prop and pull it through. Should you slip or the aircraft lurch, at least you’re out of the way and close enough to the cockpit to take action.

In hand propping from the front - I just make sure the throttle barely opened. the bird I've been working on has about 3 hours on the engine, starts up real easy and idles perfect so even with the throttle at "full idle" I know it isn’t going to lurch forward.

Oh, and did I mention I also make sure it's chocked on the right main?

I gotta remember your Mooney story - I think I might have been dumb enough to prop one if asked!


----------



## Taildragger Pilot (Feb 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info! I've hand propped a C-182, tough but do-able.
> 
> As far as the Feds - we discussed this on another site. There's really nothing preventing you from handproping by yourself - "unless you operate the aircraft in an unsafe manner." Considering the aircraft doesn't have a starter and there's never been an AD, Service Bulletin or TC addendum to mandate 2 people to start a Cub, this is one argument I'd go toe-to-toe with a PMI if he ever showed up at my local airport, providing I didn't fall on my butt while starting the airplane and have it plow into a hangar!
> 
> ...




Agree on the FAA, but you know how that goes: if it goes wrong, then you were therefore unsafe and thus in violation. If it goes fine, then you always knew what you were doing and a credit to mankind. You tell this to people without a ticket and it's always, "Really?". Pretty much how it is.

The Cub I fly now and the other half-dozen over the years all started pretty much the same and like you point out; pretty easily*. Esp warm or even just run in the last 24hrs, and all this always better if the air temp is over 70s. But when it's been a few days and air temp is the lower 60s to 30's, she wants 2 or 3 or ? primer shots. Then, regardless of how tight the throttle, you get that "primer blast" for 2-4 seconds after she catches. Even tied down, it's a little more business than you want with no one in the cockpit. On pavement with only a chock(s)....  

What goes on in YOUR mind when you are saying the following: "OK, just keep pressing your heels on those brakes, don't let up till I am in the plane and tell you to, and remember; when it catches, pull the throttle BACK. Show me BACK... OK fine, here we go..."

I think: "If my last moments are ever on YouTube, this is it."

* Self flagellation moment: The one time a Cub was truly hard to start, it was trying to tell me something and I would not listen. Was hard to start and though the mags carbheat checked, it wasn't real happy below 1000rpm. Didn't listen. Shot a few patterns and below about 1/4 throttle sounded and felt like I had kicked off the mags. Didn't listen.

Headed off to destination. Hey, its 10 minutes away and mostly rural; why climb above 700ft agl? Yes, we all know why; but it won't happen to me.... First came the vibration, then became severe, had to keep cutting power because the max tolerable rpm kept dropping. Not ignition, not carb ice... turned out the base studs for the #4 jug were breaking. Ended up deadsticking, but that another story. Point is/was, when ya know a plane's habits and she acts differently, listen. Not preaching, but turning myself in. Thought of it when typing above about Cubs always being easy to start. "Well, 'cept this one time...."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

Great stuff and pretty airplane - is that a Maule Tail Wheel?


----------



## Taildragger Pilot (Feb 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great stuff and pretty airplane - is that a Maule Tail Wheel?



Don't know. Not mine, shared and I was a latecomer.

In 3-point is too easy to touch tailwheel first and so on grass makes perfect full-stall 3-point all but impossible. Slows things down a bit on pavement, though, which I suppose is a good thing for some.

I can't complain. Primary is a A&E and a CFI. I run no fees and $40/hr wet (autogas waiver helps there). Hourmeter is rpm counter type. Just tooling around and running 2000 rpm, I can get 1.3 clock hours for every hr of tach time. Like I said, no complaints.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2009)

Taildragger Pilot said:


> Don't know. Not mine, shared and I was a latecomer.
> 
> In 3-point is too easy to touch tailwheel first and so on grass makes perfect full-stall 3-point all but impossible. Slows things down a bit on pavement, though, which I suppose is a good thing for some.
> 
> I can't complain. Primary is a A&E and a CFI. I run no fees and $40/hr wet (autogas waiver helps there). Hourmeter is rpm counter type. Just tooling around and running 2000 rpm, I can get 1.3 clock hours for every hr of tach time. Like I said, no complaints.


Sounds like fun and for $40 an hour, can't go wrong.

The one I've been working on hasn't flown since the early 80s. I put it back together for the owner. Here's the full story.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/project-7424.html

I ran it down the runway last week. A few more high speed taxis and I'm going to get her in the air


----------



## Nightwitch (Feb 12, 2009)

How about the U-2/Po-2? More than 40,000 were produced. It was not only the aircraft that trained the VVS during the war, it was also used in combat for nuisance bombing on the German front lines. The 588th NBAP performed 24,000 combat sorties in them. Granted, they weren't exactly B-17's, but somebody had to keep the Wehrmacht from getting a good night's sleep  It would later serve in this same capacity for the North Koreans during the Korean war. So, for the number built, the training capacity, the limited bombing capacity, and the duration of service, I think the old kukuruznik ranks right up there.


----------



## yojimmbo (Mar 11, 2009)

the best for looks and sher coolness is the spitfire. it the winer hands down!! no comp.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2009)

yojimmbo said:


> the best for looks and sher coolness is the spitfire. it the winer hands down!! no comp.


Looks and coolness doesn't win wars.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 11, 2009)

But, to be fair, neither does flying around loaded up with packing crates, that stuff has to be used.


----------



## JeSteR_026 (Mar 11, 2009)

Definitly the Spitfire.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2009)

Waynos said:


> But, to be fair, neither does flying around loaded up with packing crates, that stuff has to be used.


Yep and somthing has to get that stuff there, especially when you have troops on the ground.

And the best "something" was the C-47...


----------



## Elvis (Mar 12, 2009)

...ditto.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 12, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep and somthing has to get that stuff there, especially when you have troops on the ground.
> 
> And the best "something" was the C-47...



And something has to defend the airfield, so that the DC3 can be safely loaded and taking off. Further more, something should defend the DC3 against enemy fighters, so as to be able to reach the troops.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 12, 2009)

.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2009)

Marcel said:


> And something has to defend the airfield, so that the DC3 can be safely loaded and taking off. Further more, something should defend the DC3 against enemy fighters, so as to be able to reach the troops.


Sure, after a C-47 delivers the parts and fuel so "something" could fly escort.8)


----------



## Glider (Mar 12, 2009)

Elvis said:


> You're assuming the DC-3 / C-47 was a front-line aircraft.
> 
> 
> Elvis



Anyone who doesn't think that it was a front line aircraft should ask the aircrews who had significant losses dropping at Arnhem, flying the Hump and countless other places across the globe.

Another way of looking at it, if the Germans had been equipped with the C47 instead of the Ju52 they may, just may, have held Stalingrad, a sobering idea.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 12, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sure, after a C-47 delivers the parts and fuel so "something" could fly escort.8)



No, the 'something' had to fly with what it had because the undefended C-47 got shot down


----------



## renrich (Mar 12, 2009)

Glider, Wingate's Chindits could not have been operational without the C47 either.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 13, 2009)

Glider said:


> Anyone who doesn't think that it was a front line aircraft should ask the aircrews who had significant losses dropping at Arnhem, flying the Hump and countless other places across the globe.
> 
> Another way of looking at it, if the Germans had been equipped with the C47 instead of the Ju52 they may, just may, have held Stalingrad, a sobering idea.



You make a good point and one that didn't occur to me when I made that post.
Post deleted.


Elvis


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2009)

In my opinion the best of WW2 would be Focke-Wulf Fw 190D-9, even if the Bf 109 is my personal favorite airplane of all times.


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Mar 31, 2009)

Wouldn't it be more effective to simply have a nominations thread then post a poll?

70 pages is intriguing, but tiresome.


P-47D won teh war...after the Hurricane held the line in Britain.  

Once the Allies had a foothold in Europe, post D-Day, fighter range became less and less an issue. Certainly the P-51's range allowed feinting on ingress, but by then the Russian offensive was getting it's head of steam and the potential flight distances were getting shorter.

The Jug's Radial dependability, excellent firepower, loadout options for ground attack, superior high-altitude performance and decent range make it the hand to beat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2009)

Thunderbolt56 said:


> The Jug's Radial dependability, excellent firepower, loadout options for ground attack, superior high-altitude performance and decent range make it the hand to beat.


It still took a C-47 to supply it the parts needed for that "dependability, excellent firepower, loadout options for ground attack, superior high-altitude performance and decent range." Besides how many P-47s serve today in operational airforces?


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It still took a C-47 to supply it the parts needed for that "dependability, excellent firepower, loadout options for ground attack, superior high-altitude performance and decent range." Besides how many P-47s serve today in operational airforces?



I'm biased, but assault support is the most important function of aviation... it's just not as sexy as offensive air support or anti-air warfare.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2009)

mkloby said:


> I'm biased, but assault support is the most important function of aviation... it's just not as sexy as offensive air support or anti-air warfare.



Yep.

There’s always too much testosterone in this thread!


----------



## Marcel (Apr 1, 2009)

Ah Joe, another chalenge. What about the Texan/Harvard or Tigermoth? Those nice DC3's and others wouldn't fly if the pilots not learned to fly first


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Ah Joe, another chalenge. What about the Texan/Harvard or Tigermoth? Those nice DC3's and others wouldn't fly if the pilots not learned to fly first


True, but again, I didn't see any airlines shoving passengers into a surplus Texan after the war! 8)


----------



## Marcel (Apr 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> True, but again, I didn't see any airlines shoving passengers into a surplus Texan after the war! 8)



True, but didn't see any DC3 flying without pilots either


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2009)

Marcel said:


> True, but didn't see any DC3 flying without pilots either



They do have an autopilot!


----------



## mkloby (Apr 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They do have an autopilot!



George is a pretty good pilot...


----------



## Marcel (Apr 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They do have an autopilot!



In that case, what do we need pilots for???? 



mkloby said:


> George is a pretty good pilot...



Does it do take-off and crosswind landings?


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Does it do take-off and crosswind landings?



Once


----------



## mkloby (Apr 1, 2009)

Marcel said:


> In that case, what do we need pilots for????


We don't!





Marcel said:


> Does it do take-off and crosswind landings?



I'm sure some can - hover coupled landings baby!


----------



## mikamee14 (Apr 6, 2009)

I would say a corsair or hurricane


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2009)

Testosterone


----------



## mikamee14 (Apr 6, 2009)

why???????????????????????


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 6, 2009)

Read the thread...


----------



## Elvis (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm with FlyboyJ.
C-47, all the way.

You folks have to remember, at that point in time (WWII), its not the "USAF", its the "US*A*AF", a division of the Army.

The Army is all about utilizing its troops to defeat a foe.
...and btw, the word that this definition belongs to is spelled I-N-F-A-N-T-R-Y.

Everything else that exists in the Army is only support for I-N-F-A-N-T-R-Y.

Got it?

...and what better support role could aircraft play than in the guise of transport.

Sure you've got bombers...aerial artillary, but actual "artillary" is more accurate (remember, bombing technique of the day is "blanket" bombing, because of lack of control of the bombs after they've left the planes) and thus, can weigh in its destructive force much more effectively.
Sure you've got fighters.....you know what their main mission is?
To keep the interceptors from shooting down the bombers, which are already considered _secondary_ to actual Artillary, due to their lack of accuracy!

So, in that sense, you've got this little faction that sort of "messes around with itself", way up high in the air, while the troops march on and take over territory after territory.

This is why Eisenhower included the C-47 as one of vehicles that we couldn't have won the war without.

...because you don't _always_ need a gun, to make a difference.




Elvis


----------



## mkloby (Apr 7, 2009)

Elvis said:


> I'm with FlyboyJ.
> You folks have to remember, at that point in time (WWII), its not the "USAF", its the "US*A*AF", a division of the Army.
> 
> The Army is all about utilizing its troops to defeat a foe.
> BTW, the word that this definition belong to is spelled I-N-F-A-N-T-R-Y.



That's still the primary focus of USAF, USA, and USMC air assets.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 7, 2009)

Exactly, thus my comment...



> ...and what better support role could aircraft play than in the guise of transport.




Elvis


----------



## Fireaxe888 (Apr 18, 2009)

In terms of pure numbers: Fighter-BF-109,Ground-attack-IL-2,Bomber:Ju-88

In terms of ability: Fighter(non jet)-Probably a late-model Spitfire,
Ground attack-Il-2 again (The stukas were epic in 1939-1942,but got shot down like flies later on)
Bomber:B-17.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 9, 2009)

I hate the P-51, its all I hear about.

I love the P-38, its so advanced!


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 9, 2009)

I almost chose the P-51 Mustang but, I will choose the Corsair.... The Corsair had good manueverability, speed, firepower, and the Japanese called it 'whispering death'.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 9, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I almost chose the P-51 Mustang but, I will choose the Corsair.... The Corsair had good manueverability, speed, firepower, and the Japanese called it 'whispering death'.



Wasn't that the Bristol Beaufighter? Except the bit about speed and manouverability


----------



## Watanbe (Jul 9, 2009)

Yep the Beaufighter was the whispering death, its engines were s quiet the Japanese didn't hear it until it unleashed hell on them.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 9, 2009)

Thats what I thought, and what the cover of one of my old Commando comics told me


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 10, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> Yep the Beaufighter was the whispering death, its engines were s quiet the Japanese didn't hear it until it unleashed hell on them.


Well.....I learned that from the military channel.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2009)

Yeah that was the Bristol Beaufighter. The Corsair was not called the Whispering Death.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

Yeah, the F4U was called the "Whistling Death".


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 10, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah that was the Bristol Beaufighter. The Corsair was not called the Whispering Death.


 Okay.




SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Yeah, the F4U was called the "Whistling Death".


 Thanks for the information.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 10, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> I hate the P-51, its all I hear about.


P-51 P-51 P-51 P-51 P-51 P-51 P-51 P-51 P-51 P-5 1 P-51 P-51....



 (just kidding  )



Elvis


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
Take it away, I cant stand it!!!!!!!!!
I hate the P-51!!!


----------



## Elvis (Jul 10, 2009)

...tee-hee-hee...



Elvis


----------



## river (Jul 12, 2009)

Hi,

My first post 

Interesting thread and considering the diversity of war and the machines designed to excel at certain aspects, there is no simple answer.

However, if I was put on the spot to select, what in my opinion, was the best aircraft of WW2, I'd say would be the ubiquitous JU-88. It was used as a bomber, night fighter, dive bomber, reconaissance, and a host of other missions. It was used throughout the entire war. It was one of the most versatile aircraft of its time.

The C47 is a close second, and while the need to supply the troops and war effort is supreme, it was the land supplies and ships that did the bulk of the support. Tanks, howitzers, munitions, food was mostly fed via ships to docks and then via land to the troops.

seeyuzz
river


----------



## mkloby (Jul 17, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
> Take it away, I cant stand it!!!!!!!!!
> I hate the P-51!!!



Why do you "hate" the P-51? It was a very capable aircraft that deserves its place in history even if it has acheived a mythical status.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 17, 2009)

mkloby said:


> Why do you "hate" the P-51? It was a very capable aircraft that deserves its place in history even if it has acheived a mythical status.


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 17, 2009)

mkloby said:


> Why do you "hate" the P-51? It was a very capable aircraft that deserves its place in history even if it has acheived a mythical status.




Becuase its not that even good of a plane.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 17, 2009)

Seriously? I'm not a hardcore P-51 fan myself, but I have to recognize it's capabilities and achievements.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 17, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Becuase its not that even good of a plane.


The P-51 was one of the best airplanes in WWII....So, how can you say it wasn't good? Please explain.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 17, 2009)

Its an IL2 thing, its the one of the worst planes in IL2.

Its so overated too.

The P-51 was not the best, it was inferior to the Ki-84 and many, many, many other planes.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 17, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> The P-51 was not the best, it was inferior to the Ki-84 and many, many, many other planes.


I said one of the best....What other planes was the P-51 inferior too?

"Its an IL2 thing, its the one of the worst planes in IL2."

Just because the P-51 isn't a good plane in IL2 doesn't mean it wasn't a good plane.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 17, 2009)

It was inferior to the FW-190D, Me-262, Bf-109, La-7, Yak-3, temptest, corsair, P-38 and more.


----------



## Butters (Jul 17, 2009)

Ummm....You do realize that Il-2 is only a GAME, right?

The P-51 could put up a good fight against ANY prop fighter. And fly further than almost any other type.

:Hi-performance
:Excellent handling
:Excellent visibility
: Decent firepower
:Exceptional range
:Reliable
:Inexpensive

What more do ya want?

JL


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 17, 2009)

Want more?

The Me-309, F8F, hawker sea furry, YP-80 and I'l be back with some more...



Butters said:


> Ummm....You do realize that Il-2 is only a GAME, right?
> 
> The P-51 could put up a good fight against ANY prop fighter. And fly further than almost any other type.
> 
> ...




I would like low altitude performance, more munuverability and not stalling all the time.

And its not a "game" its a sim.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> And its not a "game" its a sim.



a SIM is a device you could log time in as a rated pilot. I don't care if you have 100,000 hours on IL-2 or any other of those GAMES, unless the device is certified and operated so a RATED PILOT could log time on, its nothing but a GAME.


----------



## river (Jul 18, 2009)

Hi,

Crikey mate, are you basing your perception of the P51 on how it is portrayed in the IL-2 Game? 

river


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> The P-51 was not the best, it was inferior to the Ki-84 and many, many, many other planes.



You are right it was not the best, but it was one of the best planes of the WW2 and one of the best piston engined planes ever built. 

Fact is fact. 

You can not base the reality of an aircraft based off of a silly video game.



SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Want more?
> 
> The Me-309, F8F, hawker sea furry, YP-80 and I'l be back with some more...





Forget about the 309. It was only built as prototypes...

Besides the 309 was not all it was cracked up to be. It was only about 30 mph faster than the Bf 109G but the Bf 109G could out turn the Me 309. Once armament was added, the 309 became too slow. So take that one off your list.

Forget about the Bf 109. I would say the Bf 109 and the P-51 were equal depending on the conditions. Some areas the P-51 was superior, others the Bf 109. So don't say the P-51 was inferior to the Bf 109.

Same goes for the Fw 190.

Don't even try and compare the P-80 shooting star to the P-51!!! Completely different generation of aircraft!

Seriously, lay off the video games...



SILVERFISH1992 said:


> It was inferior to the FW-190D, Me-262, Bf-109, La-7, Yak-3, temptest, corsair, P-38 and more.



Inferior to:

Fw 190D - Possibly but not at all conditions. There are certainly conditions where the P-51D was at least and equal or better than the Fw 190D.

Me 262 - Why are you even trying to compare??? Two different generations of aircraft!

Bf 109 - See above... The P-51 and Bf 109 were equals with each having advantages and disadvantages over the other, with the P-51D probably having a slight edge.

La-7 - Explain how the P-51 was inferior, and do not use the video game as a reference.

Yak-3 - Explain how the P-51 was inferior, and do not use the video game as a reference.



SILVERFISH1992 said:


> And its not a "game" its a sim.



It is a game, and if you think you can compare a *video game* to real flying especially under combat conditions you are very very mistaken!


----------



## Waynos (Jul 18, 2009)

Silverfish - you may be better off using that reason in my 'illogical' thread than here  According to my experience in CFS3 the Vampire could piss all over the Ho IX, Me 262 and P-80 with ease - but do I believe it to be true? Nah.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

Read the title of this thread, it asks what you think is the best aircraft.

So I stated my opinion and who cares what you think, and who cares what I think.

If you think it was the best then go ahead. All I'm saying is that I disagree.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Want more?
> 
> The Me-309, F8F, hawker sea furry, YP-80 and I'l be back with some more...
> 
> ...


I don't care if it's a game or a sim, it's still a game. YOU CAN'T BASE IT OFF A GAME.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

I dont base it of of a game, I just use the sim to get an idea of what it could be like.

How do you know its so awsome then?


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> I dont base it of of a game, I just use the sim to get an idea of what it could be like.
> 
> How do you know its so awsome then?


It's considered to be the best plane of WWII and it was still in service in 1984!P-51 Mustang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Here is what a vet said about it.

"Robert Goebel flew Mustangs with the 31st Fighter Group, based at San Severo, Italy, in the MTO (Mediterranean Theater of Operations). Like Bud Anderson, he had flown P-39s earlier on. At San Severo in Spring 1944, he got his first crack at the P-51: 

We soon found out that the P-51 Mustang was indeed a different breed of airplane. It was fast, for one thing. ... The P-51 was redlined at 505 and, though it was no Spitfire, its turning ability wasn't bad at all - especially if you sneaked down 10 degrees of flaps. It was pretty good in the climbing department too, and accelerated very fast in a dive. But the thing that really set the Mustang apart from any other fighter, friend or foe, was its range. With a 75-gallon tank slung under each wing, it could perform the unheard-of: It could fly six-hour missions. 

Physically, it was pleasing to the eye and looked fast, even sitting on the ground. Power was provided by a V-1650 Rolls-Royce Merlin engine built under license in the States by Packard, the luxury automobile company. The V-1650 was a fine engine and could be taken up to 61 inches of manifold pressure at 3,000 RPM for take-off or, if needed in combat, 67 inches for up to five minutes in Emergency Power. Normally aspirated engines tended to run out of power as altitude increased, usually between 15,000 and 20,000 feet.

The P-51 had a two-stage blower in the induction system that was controlled automatically with a barometric switch. Around 17,000 feet, when the throttle had been advanced almost all the way forward just to maintain normal cruise, the blower would kick into high, the manifold pressure would jump up, and the climb could be continued to 30,000 feet. The P-51 could be taken a lot higher than that, but above 30,000 feet the power was way down and the controls had to be handled gingerly. "


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

Who considers it to be the best?

Thats their opinion.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

*Please, read this.*

"The P-51 Mustang was the excellent long range fighter aircraft which since late 1943 was the first to provide US heavy bombers with the type of escort they needed in order to efficiently destroy Nazi Germany's war production. Unlike earlier shorter-range allied fighters used for bomber escort, like the Spitfire, the P-47 and the P-38, the new P-51 Mustang was the first fighter which: 

Could escort the heavy bombers all the way to their targets very deep in Germany and back. 
Was equal or better than the Luftwaffe's best fighters and could defeat them over their own territory. 
With these two significant advantages, the P-51 Mustang dramatically reduced the losses of the heavy bombers, shot down an increasing number of German fighters, and eventually also attacked many ground targets, mostly small but important ground targets which were too small for the high flying heavy bomber formations. 
It was a cycle which gradually and systematically eroded the Luftwaffe and achieved allied air superiority deep over Nazi Germany. 

Many of the bombarded targets were directly related to the Luftwaffe's ability to keep fighting, for example aircraft factories, and the fuel industry, which was systematically decimated. So after each such massive bombardment the German industry could produce less new fighters to replace combat losses, and of the fewer fighters, even fewer were actually able to take off and intercept the heavy bombers and face their Mustang escorts, because they suffered an increasingly severe shortage of fuel, spare parts, etc. 

As a result of that, fewer heavy bombers were shot down by the German fighters and so more and more bombers participated in those bombardments, further increasing their damage to the German industry and so on. 

The ever smaller number of German fighters available for interception missions meant that the German fighters were increasingly outnumbered over their own territory. Instead of facing swarms of hundreds of Me-109s and Fw-190s, the heavy bombers and their Mustang escorts gradually met smaller numbers of German fighters and were able to shoot down more of them, literally decimating the Luftwaffe, and further reducing losses among the heavy bombers. 

Once local air superiority around the bomber formations was achieved, the P-51 Mustang pilots were able to go to the next step, storming Luftwaffe airfields and other ground targets and ambushing the German fighters at takeoff and landing. 

This tactic was especially efficient against the Luftwaffe's new "wonder weapons", the new jet and rocket fighters. At high altitude and at full speed, the Mustang could not chase the much faster Me-262 jet fighters, so instead the Mustang pilots followed the German jets to their airfields where they shot them down as they descended at low speed for landing. 

Over all, it was a classic example of a strategic campaign to achieve air superiority by destroying the enemy Air Force's ground infrastructures and by massively engaging it in the air while doing so. 

The presence of the Mustangs over the heart of Germany also pulled a significant part of the Luftwaffe's tactical fighter squadrons from the war fronts to the center of Germany, which meant that tactical aircraft of The Allies could smash German ground units, especially German armor, with much greater ease. 

The other great benefit of the air campaign over Germany, which was its goal in the first place, was that the huge formations of heavy bombers, efficiently protected by the P-51 Mustang "Little friends", were able to efficiently bring the mighty German war machine to a standstill. German war production of all types was significantly damaged and just like the grounded German jets, the German tanks in the battlefield also suffered extreme shortage of fuel and spare parts. For example, many of Germany's new mighty King Tiger tanks were simply abandoned in the field for lack of fuel. 

One of the most successful fighter projects ever, the P-51 Mustang was North American's first fighter project. It was initially ordered in 1940 by the Royal Air Force which used it as a ground attack aircraft thanks to its high speed at low altitude and its long range. In 1942 the British made an experiment. They installed their superb 1500hp Rolls-Royce Merlin fighter engine in four Mustangs and tested them. The result was spectacular, clearly an excellent fighter, with an unprecedented range of 2080 miles (3347km) with external fuel tanks. This was the aircraft which later dominated the sky over Germany. 

It was produced in very large numbers in several successively improved types. A total of 15,586 Mustangs were produced, and almost 8000 of them were of the most popular D type, which had a tear-drop shaped cockpit canopy. It had a high altitude speed of 704 km/h (437mph). It was armed with six 0.5" machine guns. Not a heavy armament compared with other fighters, but definitely enough against enemy fighters, its main target, and for strafing unarmored ground targets. For ground attack missions it could also carry two 1000lb bombs instead of the external fuel tanks, or six 5" rockets. 

After World War 2 the Mustang served in no less than 55 air forces worldwide, and although it was the supersonic jet age by then, small numbers were even produced in 1967 for various military purposes, another proof of how excellent this aircraft was. 

The most famous Mustang pilot and ace is Chuck Yeager. Yeager was the ultimate fighter pilot. As a young Mustang pilot he once downed five German fighters in one mission. He downed two much faster Me-262 jet fighters, escaped captivity after being shot down over occupied France, and when the war ended, it was still just the beginning of his amazing career. After the war Yeager became a test pilot, and in 1947 he earned his place in the history books as the first man who "broke the sound barrier" in the daring first supersonic flight. "


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

Opinions!!!

The person who decided to biuld it in 1967 had an opinion it was the best.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

It (P-51) had an 11:1 kill-to-loss ratio.....That seems to prove it was a great fighter.

BTW,So how many of these planes have you flown? If you can't trust what the vets said about it, then you have a problem.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

Yea but who was the P-51 fighting?

Inexperienced germans and japanese?


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Opinions!!!
> 
> The person who decided to biuld it in 1967 had an opinion it was the best.


Okay, so what evidence do you have that the P-51 wasn't a good plane?


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Yea but who was the P-51 fighting?
> 
> Inexperienced Germans and Japanese?


No, the P-51 flew the first time in 1940....The Germans and Japanese had very good pilots up to about 1944-1945.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

Then why did the japanese do kamakazi attacks if they were so good?


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Then why did the japanese do kamakazi attacks if they were so good?


I said up to about 1944-1945......


P.S You have yet to post a single bit of proof that the P-51 wasn't a good plane....and don't try to base the proof off a video game!


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

Why dont you compare the P-51 to the F8F on wikipedia and find out.

I'l be back with some more facts.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Then why did the japanese do kamakazi attacks if they were so good?



They didn't do it all the time, it wasn't a standard tactic of theirs. P-51's also faced hardened LW pilots defending their own country from US daylight bombing raids. No picnic there.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 18, 2009)

You do realize the F8F did not see in combat in WWII?


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Why dont you compare the P-51 to the F8F on wikipedia and find out.
> 
> I'l be back with some more facts.


The F8F had little to no service in ww2........Let me guess....Next you are going to compare it to the F86- Sabre?

"You do realize the F8F did not see in combat in WWII? "

Exactly!


----------



## Waynos (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Why dont you compare the P-51 to the F8F on wikipedia and find out.
> 
> I'l be back with some more facts.



The F8F missed the war, the P-51 fought in about two thirds of it. Why would you think thats a valid comparison? otherwise why not compare the P-51 with the Hawker Hunter to show it was bad? 

Is there an echo in here


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

"Heavy losses were suffered by American airmen in these raids due to the mustangs inability to withstand battle damage"

I'm getting some mor facts....

Heres some more:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

Go down to P-51 vs the F4U.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 18, 2009)

No, you show something that says 'The P-51 was not one of WWII's greatest aircraft' for this is the point you are arguing with. All major combatant types suffered losses, thats what happens in war.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 18, 2009)

It compares the P-51B


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

What about it?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 18, 2009)

It's an early version, IMHO if you are going to judge the P-51, you should start with at least the D version.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> WWII Aircraft Performance[/url]
> 
> Go down to P-51 vs the F4U.


Please, do show more.

"It's an early version, IMHO if you are going to judge the P-51, you should start with at least the D version. "

Exactly.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

Well then lets see you find some facts about the not best wwii aircraft.

Especialy when the world is lost saying that the P-51 is the all time best.

Youl probably find 10000 sites that are wrong and say that the P-51 is the best.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 18, 2009)

We're just asking you what you base your opinion on it not being one of the greatest fighters of WWII


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Well then lets see you find some facts about the not best wwii aircraft.
> 
> Especialy when the world is lost saying that the P-51 is the all time best.
> 
> Youl probably find 10000 sites that are wrong and say that the P-51 is the best.


Here's some facts about one of the best planes of WWII.

"The North American Aviation P-51 Mustang was a long-range single-seat fighter aircraft that entered service with Allied air forces in the middle years of World War II.

The P-51 flew most of its wartime missions as a bomber escort in raids over Germany, helping ensure Allied air superiority from early 1944. It also saw limited service against the Japanese in the Pacific War. The Mustang began the Korean War as the United Nations' main fighter, but was relegated to a ground attack role when superseded by jet fighters early in the conflict. Nevertheless, it remained in service with some air forces until the early 1980s.

As well as being economical to produce, the Mustang was a fast, well-made, and highly durable aircraft. The definitive version, the P-51D, was powered by the Packard V-1650, a two-stage two-speed supercharged version of the legendary Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, and was armed with six .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns.

After World War II and the Korean conflict, many Mustangs were converted for civilian use, especially air racing. The Mustang's reputation was such that, in the mid-1960s, Ford Motor Company's Designer John Najjar proposed the name for a new youth-oriented coupe automobile after the fighter.[2
"


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

Thats why the Ford Mustang is such a bad car. 

Honestly, the P-51 is okay, I just get sick of hearing about it all the time.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Honestly, the P-51 is okay, I just get sick of hearing about it all the time.


That doesn't mean it wasn't a good plane.... Only okay? No, great!.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Read the title of this thread, it asks what you think is the best aircraft.
> 
> So I stated my opinion and who cares what you think, and who cares what I think.
> 
> If you think it was the best then go ahead. All I'm saying is that I disagree.



That is fine, but then state it as your opinion, but if you are going to call it inferior to other aircraft, then you better back it up with real facts!



SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Why dont you compare the P-51 to the F8F on wikipedia and find out.
> 
> I'l be back with some more facts.



You keep comparing apples and oranges! 

Comparing the Mustang to the Bearcat is like comparing the F-86 Sabre to the F-4 Phantom! Of course the Bearcat is going to be better, it is a generation ahead of the P-51!

Compare it to contemporary aircraft!



SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Well then lets see you find some facts about the not best wwii aircraft.
> 
> Especialy when the world is lost saying that the P-51 is the all time best.
> 
> Youl probably find 10000 sites that are wrong and say that the P-51 is the best.



No one here is saying it was the all time best. I find it to be a slightly overated aircraft, but fact is fact:

1. It was one of the best aircraft.
2. It was equal to or better than almost anything that saw service in WW2.

You decided to dispute that by comparing it to planes that are a generation ahead of it and by playing video games.

So why should we waste our time finding "proof". If you are going to state something, then you find the facts and prove us wrong.

I have not seen any facts posted by you yet...



SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Honestly, the P-51 is okay, I just get sick of hearing about it all the time.



That makes it inferior?

That is what you stated, several pages before. Please post the facts that prove that. We are all still waiting.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Read the title of this thread, it asks what you think is the best aircraft.
> 
> So I stated my opinion and *who cares what you think*, and who cares what I think.
> 
> If you think it was the best then go ahead. All I'm saying is that I disagree.


Not to add to this "fight", but speaking from experience, be careful making statements like the part of your response that I've highlighted in bold letters.
This _could_ get you banned from this site.
....especially if you make that statement to LES OF PRIMUS. 


Just saying.



Elvis


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is fine, but then state it as your opinion, but if you are going to call it inferior to other aircraft, then you better back it up with real facts!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is inferior.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 18, 2009)

Why??? Just because you say so? That isn't a reason to make it inferior that is just an opinion and opinions mean sh*t without evidence...


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

Gnomey said:


> Why??? Just because you say so? That isn't a reason to make it inferior that is just an opinion and opinions mean sh*t without evidence...



Exactly! 

its everyones opinion that its Great, and thats there opinion.

I just said my opinion.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Exactly!
> 
> its everyones opinion that its Great, and thats there opinion.
> 
> I just said my opinion.



Its a fine aircraft but depending on the task there are better , but overall it did a number of tasks reasonably well . Was it the equal of a Spit in a dogfight no but how many Spits were there dogfighting over Berlin in mid 44


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> It is inferior.


You have not posted a single bit of proof and until you do, you have nothing to back up that statement!


"Why??? Just because you say so? That isn't a reason to make it inferior that is just an opinion and opinions mean sh*t without evidence... "

My sentiments exactly.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Thats why the Ford Mustang is such a bad car.
> 
> Honestly, the P-51 is okay, I just get sick of hearing about it all the time.


Kind of a bad thing to state when you're trying to make a point about your opinion.

Like it's aircraft namesake, the Ford Mustang was economical to produce, affordable to purchase and a reliable performer.

It had decent lines and an economical engine (and of course, later options allowed for brutal horsepower) but quickly became an icon and influenced vehicle designs for that class of car, for years.

My personal opinion is that, much like it's aircraft namesake, it's a bit over-rated...however, I can't deny that it was a good machine that delivered on it's designer's promise.

And this is coming from a die-hard Chevy fan/owner.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 18, 2009)

I'm not going to argue! 

Its inferior to most planes!

Its not my favorite!

I'm not going to reply anymore!

Its over!

Done!


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> It is inferior.


You are trolling! I am done fighting you troll!

"I'm not going to argue! 

Its inferior to most planes!

Its not my favorite!

I'm not going to reply anymore!

Its over!

Done! "


Okay, troll.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> I'm not going to argue!
> 
> Its inferior to most planes!
> 
> ...


Have you ever seen a real one ? or just a CGI representation?
Its a statement of American industrial stregth the fact that the aircraft went from drawings to production in such a short time and don't forget the fact that Packhard went on to make the Merlin also in a short period of time . Give your head a shake , I can't recall anyone here saying it was the be all to end all


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 18, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Have you ever seen a real one ? or just a CGI representation?
> Its a statement of American industrial stregth the fact that the aircraft went from drawings to production in such a short time and don't forget the fact that Packhard went on to make the Merlin also in a short period of time . Give your head a shake , I can't recall anyone here saying it was the be all to end all


Yes, I never once said it was the best plane of WWII, I said "one of the best"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> It is inferior.



How??????????????????

You keep saying so, but you don't back it up with any facts!! Explain to us with facts how it was inferior to its contemporary aircraft? 

I for one do not think it was the greatest thing since bread and butter, but it did do what it was designed to do, and it was at least equal to its opponents. Now prove me wrong...



SILVERFISH1992 said:


> I'm not going to argue!
> 
> Its inferior to most planes!
> 
> ...



Very mature! 

How old are you???

You make claims (call them opinions, but say you have facts to back them up), then you supply no facts. Fact of the matter is this:

Whether you like the aircraft or not, it was one of the best. Maybe you should have posted in a different thread, about favorites, but not best. So basically you get yourself into a bunch because of your "factual opinions" and then you can't take the heat and run. Way to go kid...


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 19, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Gnomey said:
> 
> 
> > Why??? Just because you say so? That isn't a reason to make it inferior that is just an opinion and opinions mean sh*t without evidence...
> ...



*So* where is your evidence to support your argument???? You haven't provide any therefore your opinion is worthless....


----------



## Waynos (Jul 19, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> I'm not going to argue!
> 
> Its inferior to most planes! * - pointless and meaningless statement - planes like what? A380? Concorde? What are you talking about?*
> 
> ...



PS. Have you figured out yet when we will have planes with no engines or wings?


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 19, 2009)

Waynos said:


> PS. Have you figured out yet when we will have planes with no engines or wings?


I wonder if we've chased the troll off.


----------



## river (Jul 19, 2009)

Hi,



Doughboy said:


> I wonder if we've chased the troll off.



Maybe not, if you chased him with the inferior P51! 

river


----------



## Njaco (Jul 19, 2009)

> Read the title of this thread, it asks what you think is the best aircraft.
> 
> So I stated my opinion and who cares what you think, and who cares what I think.
> 
> If you think it was the best then go ahead. All I'm saying is that I disagree.



First, Silver, you must understand something. This forum deals with real aircraft in real situations. It is not a gaming site although we do have a section on games. The members here discuss what the real and true attributes of aircraft are in all types of situations. We discuss historical fact. We have members who are pilots, mechanics, real people with real experience. So when a question is posed "What is the best...", in almost all accounts we are talking real aircraft and thier qualities. Comparing the flight chracteristics of the Fw 200 in IL2 or CFS2 is not taken into consideration. It doesn't belong here.



> Why dont you compare the P-51 to the F8F on wikipedia and find out.



Take a look out the window. See the 9 year old kid from down the block on his Big Wheel? 10 mintes ago he just posted the starting procedures of the Boeing 747 on Wikipedia. That is the source you are using. In fact, later today I'm going to post how to calibrate a Saturn V rocket. Wiki is to be used as a guide, not fact.



> It was inferior to the FW-190D, Me-262, Bf-109, La-7, Yak-3, temptest, corsair, P-38 and more.



Would you agree that the Me 262 was the cutting edge of airplane development during WWII? That it was the next generation of fighter aircraft and showed the future of aviation? Really advanced and fast.

Now list the types of fighters that actually shot down a Me 262. Oh, look, the P-51!



> Honestly, the P-51 is okay, I just get sick of hearing about it all the time.



If you had stopped here, you would have been fine. Stated your opinion, gave a valid reason and short and sweet. But you kinda dug a hole with facts from IL2 and Wiki. 

I, myself am sometimes tired of hearing all the glories of the P-51 but it can't be denied that it was one of the best.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2009)

The BP Defiant was better than the P-51, because I said so.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 19, 2009)

plan_D said:


> The BP Defiant was better than the P-51, because I said so.



Close the thread. We have our answer!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2009)

If you are going to have temper tantrums because people ask you for facts to back up your posts, then I suggest you find another forum. Here are a few suggestions I have for you:

Classic Sesame Street - Muppet Central Forum
Classic Sesame Street - Muppet Central Forum

SpongeBob SquarePants Forum 
SpongeBob SquarePants Forum - Topix

Dragonball Z Forum
Dragonball Z Forum


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 19, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> I'm not going to argue! *because I have nothing to back up my statements*
> 
> Its inferior to most planes! *I like to compare modern planes to the Mustang*
> 
> ...




Okay, I'm done editing.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 19, 2009)

Silverfish, we had 71 pages of civil discussion before you posted your P-51 hate rant. It is one thing to have a civil discussion, it is quite another to just make statements and then not back those up with facts. You CANNOT base your opinion on the performance of something in a GAME. I have flown combat flight sims on the computer and while they are fun, they aren't like the real thing. I have flown air combat that was real except for the bullets. Air Combat USA gives the real experience without getting yourself killed.

You can fly combat flight sims all day in the comfort of your air-conditioned house, free of G loads and the ability to pause to get some water, take a leak, etc. You don't have that luxury in a real airplane, pulling up to 10 Gs in 115 degree heat.

When it all comes down to air combat, it is the person in the cockpit's skill and some luck that will wing the fight. I bagged an Extra 300S while flying a Marchetti SF-260, twice! Compare the capabilities of the 2 aircraft and see who SHOULD win that fight. 

With all your rant against the P-51, you never did state what you thought was the best...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 19, 2009)

Nice Adler.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 19, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Adler, that's hilarious.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 19, 2009)

Everyone, I apoligize for my rude behavior.

The P-51 is equal or better then most planes.

Please forgive me.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 19, 2009)

evangilder said:


> Silverfish, we had 71 pages of civil discussion before you posted your P-51 hate rant. It is one thing to have a civil discussion, it is quite another to just make statements and then not back those up with facts. You CANNOT base your opinion on the performance of something in a GAME. I have flown combat flight sims on the computer and while they are fun, they aren't like the real thing. I have flown air combat that was real except for the bullets. Air Combat USA gives the real experience without getting yourself killed.
> 
> You can fly combat flight sims all day in the comfort of your air-conditioned house, free of G loads and the ability to pause to get some water, take a leak, etc. You don't have that luxury in a real airplane, pulling up to 10 Gs in 115 degree heat.
> 
> ...



I think the P-38 is the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Everyone, I apoligize for my rude behavior.
> 
> The P-51 is equal or better then most planes.
> 
> Please forgive me.



Silverfish, we are not asking you to give in. We are only asking you to back up your statements with facts.

The P-51D is not my favorite aircraft either, but this thread is not about favorite but rather best. Was it the best, by no means. Was it inferior to its contemporary aircraft? Of course not.

If you had gone into the thread about Favorite aircraft and posted that you do not like the P-51 because it is all you ever hear about. That would have been fine. But your arguments in this thread, were very absurd. Go back and read your threads and you will see what I mean.



SILVERFISH1992 said:


> I think the P-38 is the best.



Why is that? State the reasons that you think it was the best. That is how conversations are conducted on forums. 

If everyone were just state: "---- Is the best", we would have no need for a forum.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 19, 2009)

The P-38 was the best in my opinion becuase it had wonderful range, good high speed aircraft, very powefrul armament, very agile, very advanced and very good looking.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 19, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Everyone, I apoligize for my rude behavior.
> 
> The P-51 is equal or better then most planes.
> 
> Please forgive me.


You're forgiven.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 19, 2009)

plan_D said:


> The BP Defiant was better than the P-51, because I said so.


I'll see your Defiant with a P-26 and raise you an F2A-1! 

...or better yet, wanna see who can walk away from the most ground loops?
C'MON! I'll put my Stearman against your Defiant any day, mister!

... 




Elvis


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2009)

All in with the Blackburn Roc, a loss to mission ratio of 1:1.


----------



## adr32 (Aug 18, 2009)

i think if the c-47 was armed like this it would be the best but just plain or just the paratrooper type it is ok


----------



## Elvis (Aug 20, 2009)

Well, _technically_, this doesn't count for this thread, but during Vietnam, the US developed a version of the C-47 that was armed.
All of the guns pointed at a downward angle, because they were meant to lay concentrated suppresive fire into a small area, before ground troops would come in.
Carried a couple of 7.62 miniguns, a couple of 50's and either a 20 or a rapid fire 37mm.
The type was called a "Gunship" and was a pretty effective little beast.
AFAIK, the role has been taken over by the C-130, these days.

I've heard the C-47 Gunships referred to as "Puff the Magic Dragon", but I used to be neighbors with an ol' boy who was a wig in the Army back in the 60's. 
His department tested all the new equipment to see if it was fit for duty.
One of these items was a pneumatically actuated version of the 7.62 minigun, and he told me THAT was "Puff the Magic Dragon", so maybe the plane got the name from the gun?



Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 20, 2009)

adr32 said:


> i think if the c-47 was armed like this it would be the best but just plain or just the paratrooper type it is ok



Testosterone......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2009)

adr32 said:


> i think if the c-47 was armed like this it would be the best but just plain or just the paratrooper type it is ok



Why? A plane does not have to be armed to the teeth to be a great plane. The C-47 performed the best as a transport.

It takes more than slinging bullets to win a war.


----------



## beaupower32 (Aug 21, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It takes more than slinging bullets to win a war.





Very True!


----------



## Elvis (Aug 21, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why? A plane does not have to be armed to the teeth to be a great plane. The C-47 performed the best as a transport.
> 
> It takes more than slinging bullets to win a war.


+1.


Elvis


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 21, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why? A plane does not have to be armed to the teeth to be a great plane. The C-47 performed the best as a transport.
> 
> It takes more than slinging bullets to win a war.



A-Fricken-Men! Kinda surprised we have not had one entered into the MTO GB.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 21, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why? A plane does not have to be armed to the teeth to be a great plane. The C-47 performed the best as a transport.
> 
> It takes more than slinging bullets to win a war.


Ditto.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

I love the P-47!!8)

It realy is quite superior to the P-51, and I got facts to prove it!

This is why the P-47 is better.

1. The Republic Thunderbolt had a radial engine that could take hits and keep on running. I know of an actual case where a Jug brought a pilot back from Borneo after 8 hours in the air. The pilot landed with the master cylinder and three other cylinders blown out of commission. But the Jug kept chugging along, running well enough to bring its pilot back safely to his base at Morotai. I was there.

2. The Jug's radial engine was air cooled, instead of liquid cooled with a radiator system, like the Mustang's V-12. This is significant because one small caliber hit on an aluminum cooling line in a Mustang would let the coolant leak out, and when the coolant was gone, the engine seized, and the show was over.

I took a small caliber hit in a coolant tube over Formosa (Taiwan). When I landed back at base, my crew chief said, "Lieutenant, did you know you got hit?" I replied, "No." He continued, "You took a small caliber shell in the coolant tube on the right side of the engine. I'd give you between 10 and 15 minutes flying time remaining." I had just flown from Formosa, over nothing but the Pacific Ocean, to our fighter strip on Okinawa.

3. The P-47 could fly higher than the P-51. With its huge turbocharger, it could climb to over 40,000 feet. You could just look down at your enemy in a stall and smile.

4. The Jug could out dive the Mustang. As a matter of fact, it could out dive any enemy fighter, and at 7.5 tons loaded, it dove fast! I have personally been in a dive at what we called the "state of compressibility," at nearly 700 mph indicated air speed. I was scared to death, but with a tiny bit of throttle, I pulled it out at about 2,000-foot altitude, literally screaming through the sky.

5. The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six. That's 33 1/3% more firepower. This made a major difference.

6. The later model Thunderbolt's could carry and deliver 2,500 pounds of bombs. (One 1,000-lb. bomb on each wing, and one 500 lb. bomb under the belly.) This was a maximum load and you had to use water injection to get airborne. But it would do this with sufficient runway. I have done this myself. 

In addition to being a first class fighter, it was also a superb fighter-bomber and ground level strafer. Jugs practically wiped out the German and Italian railroads. I have strafed Japanese trains, troops, ships, gunboats, warships, airfields, ammo dumps, hangers, antiaircraft installations, you name it. I felt secure in my P-47.

7. The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool. Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts, and were more lightweight in construction. One example was the throttle arm. You can see the difference. What does all this mean? The safety of the fighter pilot.

8. The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom. You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if your wheels would not come down (due to damage or mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen. 

9. The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit. You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit. In my Mustang, my shoulders almost scraped the sides on the right and left. I was cramped in with all my "gear." I could not move around like I could in the P-47. I found the ability to move a little bit very desirable, especially on seven and eight hour missions.

10. The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a 2,000 hp Pratt Whitney engine, and ended up with 2,800 war emergency hp with water injection. That's close to twice the power.

11. The Jug had a very wide landing gear. This made it easy to land just about anywhere, with no tendency to ground loop. Many times we had to land on rice paddies and irregular ground. When you set the Thunderbolt down, it was down. In the Far East, England, Africa, and Italy, this helped you get down and walk away from it. To me, that was very important for the safety of the pilot.

12. The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is remarkable. The ratio of kills to losses was unmistakably a winner. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and 160,000 vehicles.

Heres the website:

P-47 THUNDERBOLT


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 21, 2009)

I believe the P-51D could fly over 40k feet as well.

I have to question a number of other items listed as facts.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 21, 2009)

YOU took a hit in the coolant tube over formosa? When was this?


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

He He He...

Somebody else did that.

I could have let you guys beleive me.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 21, 2009)

Ah, I thought it was probably an umarked quote, just wanted to check


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

Heres what I think:

Speed: P-47

Amrmament: P-47

Accelaration: P-51

Climb rate: P-47

Armor: P-47

Endurance and reliability: P-47

Advancedness: P-47

Agility: P-51


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 21, 2009)

"5. The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had six. That's 33 1/3% more firepower. This made a major difference."






Wouldn't that be 25% more firepower?


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

I didnt write it.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> I didnt write it.


Oh, okay.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Best Wwii Fighter: P-47 Over P-51?  Military Forum | Airliners.net 

That's from this forum.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter - answer me this:

The Reno Air Races use the best aircraft to compete in races to decide who is the fastest, best, etc. in different categories.

Over the past several decades, can you name me the types of WWII modified warbirds that have competed and won? Better yet, name me the P-47 (modified or not) that has won or competed? Bet you'll find the P-51 listed.

Like we have said before, you can dislike the P-51 and you can rally the P-47. But it is opinion, nothing more. And in a world of so many tangibles,( like pilot skill and manufacturing quality) it can be difficult to say whats best and whats not.

And don't play games with quotes like that, please. It can start a whole world of trouble. Don't do it again.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

F8F, P-51 and temptest and fury.

The P-47 would be too expensive to just give for racing.(in my opinion)


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> Heres what I think:
> 
> Speed: P-47
> 
> ...


I thought the P-51 has a max speed of 453 MPH and the P-47 has a max speed of 400 MPh? Maybe I'm wrong?


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> F8F, P-51 and temptest and fury.
> 
> The P-47 would be too expensive to just give for racing.(in my opinion)



You say everything you can to deny the fact it wouldn't win!


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I thought the P-51 has a max speed of 453 MPH and the P-47 has a max speed of 400 MPh? Maybe I'm wrong?




Its so confusing these days becuase every site says somthing diferent

I stick with one clasification.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 21, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> You say everything you can to deny the fact it wouldn't win!



What makes you think it wouldnt win?

Its got areodynamics and power!?


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> What makes you think it wouldnt win?
> 
> Its got areodynamics and power!?



The P-51 has less HP , 850 less to be exact and still goes faster. Aerodynamics the P-51 had Laminar Flow wings.... are you saying that that's not aerodynamics going to at all effect its speed?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 21, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I thought the P-51 has a max speed of 453 MPH and the P-47 has a max speed of 400 MPh? Maybe I'm wrong?



THe P-51H was the hotrod. Which had a top speed of somewhere around 487. The P-47M had a top speed of around 470. Production P-51's overall was faster.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 21, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> Its so confusing these days becuase every site says somthing diferent


I agree.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 21, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I agree.




That's the beauty of a book. It's well researched and is MOST of the time reliable.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 21, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> That's the beauty of a book. It's well researched and is MOST of the time reliable.


I agree 100%.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2009)

Jeez, I give up! My eyes are bleeding.


----------



## Elvis (Aug 22, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> Doughboy said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the P-51 has a max speed of 453 MPH and the P-47 has a max speed of 400 MPh? Maybe I'm wrong?
> ...


_Well_, according to Warbird Alley, the P-51D tops out at 437mph. The P-47D, 433mph.
Not much difference.
The Jug was tough as nails and flew like it was on rails.
Many who piloted the ol' bird had a real affection for it.
I believe it had a nickname of "Cadillac of the Sky", or something like that, because it was big, roomy, powerful and flew quite "nicely".
Problem was, it didn't have the range of the 51D and what we needed was a _competitive_ escort fighter that had enough range to see the job through.
The P-38 and P-47 just didn't have the legs, plain and simple, so the nod went to the 51D and its _miserly_ P-M engine.
There never was any debate about which one was better. They were all great fighter planes!
..and I bet if I were a soldier back then, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care what kind of plane it was, as long as it was one of ours and was enough to get my @$$ out of the pickle I'm sure it would've been in when those planes arrived on the scene.
I've heard that "lost some cylinders" story before too. Many variations over the years.
Remember, its an 18 cylinder engine, so unless it looses something like 9 or 11 cylinders, its really not that much of a claim. I mean, the guy lost 4 cylinders? That means he still had *14* working just fine.
Dark Matter also forgot to tell the famous story of the P-47 that clipped a tree or a telephone pole (depending on who's telling the story) and lost 4 feet of one wing, turned around and landed with no further mishap.
I'm sure that guy's nickname was "Ace" for a LOOOONG time.




....oh, it was a QUOTE?! dam kids...GET OFFA MY LAWN! Go play in the street or somethin'!.....






Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2009)

Dark Matter said:


> Heres what I think:
> Climb rate: P-47



Please show me the rate of the climb for both aircraft. The P-51 had a higher rate of climb (not by much, but it was higher).



Dark Matter said:


> Endurance and reliability: P-47



Show some proof of this. You have to back up your opinifacts....

(man this is getting tiring...)



Dark Matter said:


> Advancedness: P-47



How was it more advanced? List all ways that is was more advanced. If you say something like "Avionics", then you have to list what avionics it had to make it more advanced. If you say something like "aerodynamics" then you have to list what features it had to make it more advanced.

Get started!



Dark Matter said:


> Its so confusing these days becuase every site says somthing diferent
> 
> I stick with one clasification.



The P-51D was faster. Why don't you try doing some real research before you post.

You stick with the one classification that proves your point (which is nothing more than opinion). The problem is that your point is not fact and wrong in many cases.


----------



## PJay (Aug 29, 2009)

I believe the P-51 was cheaper than the Thunderbolt. 2 very fine aircraft.


----------



## German Ace (Aug 29, 2009)

PJay said:


> I believe the P-51 was cheaper than the Thunderbolt. 2 very fine aircraft.



Yes and yes.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 30, 2009)

Elvis said:


> [ The P-38 and P-47 just didn't have the legs, plain and simple, so the nod went to the 51D and its _miserly_ P-M engine.
> 
> *Elvis - remember the first Allied fighters over Berlin were P-38s on March 4, 1944. The P-38's had the legs, just had a few too many problems in ETO cold air at high altitude - and cost 2x P-51*
> 
> ...



The question was when the oil loss finally occurred. While you could keep a 'hot' Merlin in the air longer by moving mixure to rich, the jug would go much longer with cans missing but eventually enough oil blows out of the holes to freeze up the engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The question was when the oil loss finally occurred. While you could keep a 'hot' Merlin in the air longer by moving mixure to rich, the jug would go much longer with cans missing but eventually enough oil blows out of the holes to freeze up the engine.



A lot more too it than that although I agree with what you have said.

This is assuming of course that when the cylinder departed company with the crankcase it didn't distort the crankcase or leave too much of the piston and/or piston rod flapping around in the breeze. 

If pistons departed with the cylinder the balance of the crankshaft assembly just might be a little out of wack.

Wonder just what the firing order turned into or what the vibration was like. 
Try just pulling the spark plugs from a few cylinders and see what an engine does.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 1, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The question was when the oil loss finally occurred. While you could keep a 'hot' Merlin in the air longer by moving mixure to rich, the jug would go much longer with cans missing but eventually enough oil blows out of the holes to freeze up the engine.


Yes, lack of oil will eventually freeze up any engine.
The gist I always got from the several variations I've heard of that story was that it conveyed the idea of the R-2800's "toughness" and "duirablity", almost to (...wait for it...) "legendary" proportions.
I've always viewed that story as a sort of "word-of-mouth-advertising" for Pratt Whitney, and really nothing more, although I'm sure there's some truth in there somewhere.
BTW, thanks for reminding me about the P-38. You're right, I incorrectly stated earlier that it didin't have the legs for the mission, when in reality, it actually did.
In fact, you just reminded me of a story I heard about Lindbergh serving a short stint with a P-38 wing somewhere in the Pacific and he figured out how to get some extra range out of that plane.
Its my understanding that he determined that a slight increase in boost, combined with adjusting more pitch into the props, would allow lowering the engine rpm (this is all at "cruise") .
The result just about doubled the plane's range.



Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Sep 1, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Try just pulling the spark plugs from a few cylinders and see what an engine does.


One thing it will do is rock vigorously from side to side.
Of course, some engines had that trait built into them (can you say "Odd Fire V-6"?).
My dad once told me that back in the 50's, Chrysler hadn't quite figured out the firing order on some of their V-8's, so they put it on the marketing department and for a few years, Chrysler advertised their V-8 engines as having "_Floating Power_".
Eventually, they figured it out and that was the end of "_Floating Power_".






Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2009)

On any radial engine the cylinders were steel. Some were all steel and and the fins cut into them and others were a steel liner with aluminium fins. On the R-2800 you had a steel "pipe" 5 3/4 in inside diameter with 'depending on model' an an aluminum muff around it or all steel fins. The piston had a 6in stroke, this is a rather massive piece of engine to go missing. 
Considering that the BMEP was over 200lb per sq in the peak pressures may have been over 600PSI which measn a force of just under 16 tons was trying to pull the cylinder from the crankcase over 1300 times a minute at full throttle. 
It is going to take more than a 7.9mm bullet to remove one of these cylinders. The fact the engine would stay running in any form or for more than a few seconds is amazing. I am sure that many engines may have given up on the spot but the few that did make it back helped the legend. 
What these acounts don't tell is how much of the cylinder is gone.
Just the head?
Partway down the barrel?
gapping hole in the crankcase where the cylinder mounting flange ( or bolt circle) used to be?

By the way "floating power" was used beore WW II and was used to describe mounting the engine with rubber bushings around the mounting bolts to isolate vibration from the rest of the car or plane. 
At least that's my loose interpritaions of the phrase as used in quotes in the 1943 edition of "Aircraft Power Plants " by Arthur Fraas


----------



## Elvis (Sep 5, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> By the way "floating power" was used beore WW II and was used to describe mounting the engine with rubber bushings around the mounting bolts to isolate vibration from the rest of the car or plane.
> At least that's my loose interpritaions of the phrase as used in quotes in the 1943 edition of "Aircraft Power Plants " by Arthur Fraas


Ah Shortround, I'm getting wise to your ways.
Once again. you skew a response, in order (it seems) to either make yourself sound superior, annoy others, or both.
I see a definate pattern developing here.


Elvis


----------



## stang (Sep 10, 2009)

if I had to guess what you were in i'd have to guess a p-51 mustang due to the ten rockets you had not sure but maybe the h series. new to site but enjoy learning about those wonderful aircraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2009)

stang said:


> if I had to guess what you were in i'd have to guess a p-51 mustang due to the ten rockets you had not sure but maybe the h series. new to site but enjoy learning about those wonderful aircraft


Welcome - also remember 10 rockets won't bring 100,000 troops on the European continent and there aren't P-51 still being used in air forces today. Again welcome and Czech your 6!


----------



## renrich (Sep 11, 2009)

If one wants to use air race results as criteria in judging performance of war birds, one is on shaky ground with the P47. There were P47s in early air races but it could not compete with the Mustang at low altitudes. It's high performance was due to it's turbo charged engine and it had to get above 25000 feet to start gaining on the Mustang. Taking all in consideration the P47 as far as being an air to air aircraft was pretty much a dog compared to the P51 B,C,or D.


----------



## Astaldo711 (Sep 11, 2009)

There's so many factors in determining an answer for that. You can compare straight numbers, like top speed, power to weight ratio, range, ceiling, firepower. You can compare aesthetics, air to air kills, air to ground kills, etc. Once factor that can't be over stressed is the pilot. The P-40 pilots of the AVG held their own against Zeros that were considered better aircraft. Training, skill and tactics made the difference. 
Besides, everyone knows the Blackburn Skua rules all!


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 12, 2009)

Astaldo711 said:


> There's so many factors in determining an answer for that. You can compare straight numbers, like top speed, power to weight ratio, range, ceiling, firepower. You can compare aesthetics, air to air kills, air to ground kills, etc. Once factor that can't be over stressed is the pilot. The P-40 pilots of the AVG held their own against Zeros that were considered better aircraft. Training, skill and tactics made the difference.
> Besides, everyone knows the Blackburn Skua rules all!



The AVG P-40s versus Zeros it's a myth


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 12, 2009)

How?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2009)

Possiably because unless the AVG were opposed by Japanese Navy air units the single radial engine retractable gear monoplane fighters they were fighting against would have been Oscars?

I don't know, I don't have the Ja[anese air unit dispositions. Just pointing out a possible answer.

I am also not saying the AVG 'never' encountered Zero's.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 12, 2009)

see here http://www.warbirdforum.com/neumann.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2009)

The AVG never fought against the Oscar. There are resources that show no Zeros were operated in Burma during the period the Flying Tigers existed. The Flying Tigers fought mainly against "Nates" and "Oscars."


----------



## Njaco (Sep 12, 2009)

I seem to remember from "God is My Co-Pilot" that the pilots talked about defeating the Zero and came up with dive and run tactics. I could be wrong. Its been years since I read the book.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 12, 2009)

Scott (like many of the AVG) might of thought he was fighting against the Zero. The Oscar was mistaken for the Zero continually and visa-versa.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 12, 2009)

Ohhhhh.... Zeros I knew they fought Oscars so when I saw AVG versus Zeroes is a myth I replaced Zeroes with Oscars...

I reject the reality and replace it with my own.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 12, 2009)

Thanks Joe, that might have been it. Its been many years since reading it.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 13, 2009)

FlyboyJ said:


> The AVG never fought against the Oscar. There are resources that show no Zeros were operated in Burma during the period the Flying Tigers existed. The Flying Tigers fought mainly against "Nates" and "Oscars."


I remember that all John Wayne could talk about, in the movie, were "Nakajima fighters".

Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 13, 2009)

Elvis said:


> I remember that all John Wayne could talk about, in the movie, were "Nakajima fighters".
> 
> Elvis


Hey, the Duke is never wrong!!!!


----------



## Elvis (Sep 14, 2009)

That's right, Pilgrim!
Now saddle up those horses and lets get a move on YA! 





Elvis


----------



## parsifal (Sep 14, 2009)

There were 25 Zeroes attached to the 22nd Naval Air Flotilla at the beginning of the war, fighting alongside the 3rd Hikoshidan, which had the only Oscars in the JAAF at that time (about 40 in total).

On the 23rd December approximately half of the 360 aircraft attached to the 3rd air division were transferred to Siam to begin operations over burma. As far as I know, no Oscars were included in that transfer, and none of the 22 air flotilla (or the Zeroes working with that formation....these aircraft were actually drawn from the 23rd Flotilla, which was deployed mainly in Formosa and engaging US forces in the Philipinnes. The Zeroes were redeployed to the southern theatre, when the Japanese learned that the British were transferring Heavy Ships and Hurricanes to help defend Malaya. These transfers were undertaken on the direct orders of Admiral Yammamoto).

Given the specific purpose for which the Yamada detachment (as the Zero formation was called) and the continued resistance being offered by the Hurricanes recently arrived in Singapore, I do not think that any Zeroes were part of the transfers to the new front in Burma. Moreover, I understand that the 22nd Flotilla and the specially attached Aero Formation remained in the Indies after the fall of Singapore.

Both the 22nd and the 23rd ended up in the South West Pacific as far as i know.


----------



## Astaldo711 (Sep 14, 2009)

I didn't mean to open a can of worms when I mentioned the P-40 and Zero. I was just saying that pilot skill must be taken into account. Look what the Finnish pilots did with the Buffalo and the Russians with the P-39. The US had all but written them off.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2009)

Pilot skill must be taken ito account . 

THe Finns may have had more skillful pilots than the Russians (or better trained, more hours) This allowed them to use infeior aircraft. 
On the other hand the Russian pilots, on average with fewer hours and less training needed a plane not just as good but actually much better so a larger number could survive their first encounters and become seasoned pilots.

Same with early US planes against the Japanese. Certain models of the buffalo might have been able to give a good account of themselves ( and some did against the Japanese) but a lack of groiund support/maintence doomed them. The P-40 was rugged enought to survive some encounters and get it's pilots back home so they could fight again. 
The Allied pilots may have been beter trained than the Russians but the Japanese Navy pilots were even better. 
Planes lier the Hellcat for the Americans or plans like the Frank latter in the war for the Japanese not only gave experienced pilots a great weapon but gave green pilots a better chance of survivieng first combats to become experinced pilots. 

Good or great pilots can make almost any plane look good. 

Good or great planes can make pilots look good or help them survive long enough to become great pilots. 

Good/great pilots in bad aircraft are going to get whittled down over time with only a few green pilots lasting
long enough to become good/great. Average pilot skill goes down hill as a whole.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 15, 2009)

Brewster couldn't meet the US Government's quota for outfitting the fleet with Buffalo's and Grumman could.
THAT is why Brewster lost that very lucrative contract.
Plus, the Grumman had more stout landing gear, which meant it stayed in operation for a longer time.
According to test pilots who flew the planes during trials the XF2A-1 was actually the better handling plane, compared to the XF4F-2.
I think the Finns had fairly skilled pilots, in a very "useful" aircraft, during the _Continuation War_, however, where they gained their experience, I don't know....maybe they were all exceptioinal students.

As for P-40 vs. Zero, here's an interesting set of comments, from the Ace Pilots page on the P-40...

"_Joel Paris was a P-40 ace with the 49th Fighter Group in the Southwest Pacific. In Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific, he relates his opinion of the P-40: 

I never felt that I was a second-class citizen in a P-40. In many ways I thought the P-40 was better than the more modern fighters. I had a hell of a lot of time in a P-40, probably close to a thousand hours. I could make it sit up and talk. It was an unforgiving airplane. It had vicious stall characteristics. ... 

If you knew what you were doing, you could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons. They looked like barn doors on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll it. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls ... 

You could push things, too. Because you knew one thing: If you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. He couldn't leave the fight because you were faster. That left you in control of the fight. Mind you: The P-40 was a fine combat airplane_ "





Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 15, 2009)

I will note that whatever the characteristics were of the XF2A-1 and the XF4f-2 were both planes had changed considerably by the time they saw combat in US service. 

I have read accounts that claim many Russian pilots only few about 30 hours a year before the war broke out. I don't know what the Finns flew but it seems to me that pilots that fly 2-3 times the number of hours per year after flight school just might have an advantage regardless of how good a students they were in flight school. 

AS for the P-40 thing. I am not going to argue religion with a true beliver.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 15, 2009)

Shortround6,

I could comment, but that would _skew_ the thread. 
If ya' wanna continue this discussion, start a separate thread and send me a link.



Elvis


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 18, 2009)

Hi guys - I've just joined the forum. A very interesting discussion .....

If I may add my 2 cents and without reading all the pages on this thread:
1.) Yes more training / experience can lessen the odds and make up for inferior equipment - eg Saburo Sakai at Iwo Jima took out a couple of Hellcats. Although updated the A6M5 Zero was no match for the Hellcat.
2.) Morale and motivation - the Finns had lots of it especially fighting for their homeland; same for the RAF in the B of B.
3.) Some planes were simply easier or harder to fly eg stall characteristics, stick and rudder balance, the actual physical effort required to fly the plane. eg the propeller torque on the Me109G series and its narrow landing gear accounted for many an unfortunate green pilot.
4.) Tactics again as in no 1 above.
5.) With reference to the Brewster Buffalo - I remember that it tended to overheat in warmer climates, thus the freezing temperatures of Finland / N Russia probably helped to mitigate this problem.


----------



## Soren (Sep 19, 2009)

I believe the A6M5 was a very dangerous opponent to the Hellcat if both were flown by well trained pilots. The Hellcat was faster, but the Zero was more agile and could climb slightly faster at 4500 ft/min. 

It was the Corsai whichr was the a/c which clearly outmatched the Zero.


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 19, 2009)

Yes, both the F4U and F6F had a clear performance edge over the A6M5. As the latter was much lighter i.e. wing loading it could almost always out turn them - at least at low speeds. But by the time these USN / USMC fighters were operational most US units in the Pacific would have learnt to use slash 'n' run tactics and avoid mixing it with Japanese fighters especially at slow speeds.

Also earlier Zeroes ie A6M2 and A6M3 could even out turn Spitfire V's and Hurricanes over Darwin Australia. 

Back to the topic : in my opinion the Corsair is a strong contender for the best overall piston engined fighter of WW2.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 21, 2009)

Guns'n'Props said:


> 5.) With reference to the Brewster Buffalo - I remember that it tended to overheat in warmer climates, thus the freezing temperatures of Finland / N Russia probably helped to mitigate this problem.



G'n'P,

Welcome to the forum. 
I hope you enjoy yourself while you're here.

Concerning your point #5, that overheating problem is something that plauged the R-1820 for some time.
It was due to the design of the cooling fins in the cylinder heads.
Wright finally got it figured out, but I think those versions of the engine used in the Buff's pre-date that.

...and, just to get us back on subject, I still say the "best" airplane of the war was the C-47.
According to Eisenhower, we couldn't have won the war without it.

JMHO!




Elvis


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 21, 2009)

Hi Elvis,

thanks for the welcome.

Re- Buffalo, Flying Officer Geoffrey B. Fisken of the RNZAF bagged 5 victories + 2 probables during the shambles of early '42 in Singapore flying the Brewster. I doubt that there were many more like him in theatre but it goes to show what a decent pilot can achieve even with a poor aircraft.

Re- "..and, just to get us back on subject, I still say the "best" airplane of the war was the C-47. According to Eisenhower, we couldn't have won the war without it."

Well yes. The Allies ultimately won through sheer numbers. So the humble transports, be they C-47s , Liberty ships, GMC trucks or DUKWs ensured that overall Allied forces had a material advantage in most theatres at least during the later stages of the war.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 21, 2009)

Guns'n'Props said:


> Hi Elvis,
> 
> thanks for the welcome.
> 
> Re- Buffalo, Flying Officer Geoffrey B. Fisken of the RNZAF bagged 5 victories + 2 probables during the shambles of early '42 in Singapore flying the Brewster. I doubt that there were many more like him in theatre but it goes to show what a decent pilot can achieve even with a poor aircraft.


If you'd like to continue this, I've sent you a PM.


Elvis


----------



## renrich (Oct 2, 2009)

A little far afield but I have often speculated that overall the Corsair might have been the best fighter in the US arsenal. Began thinking about some readily accomplished modifications which would have made the Corsair more suitable for the ETO and lightening the AC by removing the tail hook and making the wing non folding would have resulted in a little less weight and better performance.
Actually there were a number of Corsairs built by Goodyear that did not have tailhooks or folding wings and I have never seen any tests of that model which show how the weight loss affected it's performance. The F4U1 had wing tanks, not self sealing but with a CO2 purge system. It had an internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons which gave it a "yardstick" range of around 1500 miles. A realistic combat radius of around 550 miles was possible off of land bases with that fuel load.
The original XF4U had two MGs mounted above the engine. The F4U1 production AC had the fuselage lengthened by around 3 feet so that fuselage fuel tank counld be accomodated and the guns removed to the wings with the six fifties supplied with 400 rounds each except for the two outboard guns which had 375 rounds each because of wing taper.
Now comes the modification which might have made it the premier US fighter, ( if it wasn't already.) Delete the MGs in the wing and mount two 50 BMGs above the engine with 500 rounds each. Remove the accursed, infamous oil cooler from the wing root and place it behind the engine like the Hellcat and mount two 20 mm cannon, one in each wing root, with 150-200 rounds per gun, like the FW190, all guns synchronised with the prop. The guns therefore would throw all projectiles into about a 5 foot square and the g-load jamming problems of wing mounted guns would be eliminated. 
The resulting space in the wings could be used for larger self sealing fuel tanks. I estimate that at least enough additional fuel could be carried to allow a 2000 mile "yardstick" range. That would give it a combat radius of around 750 miles on internal fuel only. Even longer range would result with belly tanks. All these modifications could have been accomplished without radical redesign. Any body have comments? LOL


----------



## Elvis (Oct 2, 2009)

For land based aircraft, I could see where longer range would be an advantage, but I think the extra space on carrier-based aircraft would be better used for extra ammo storage, and/or extra hardpoints for more "munitions".

JMHO, but now I'm curious. 
Where _was_ the Blacksheep "base" actually located, in the "Baa Baa Blacksheep" TV show?
Someone once told me it a section of Hermosa Beach in California, but I don't know how true that is.



Elvis


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2009)

A friend of mine whose dad was a F-4U pilot once told me that his dad said the Corsair was the best because it could do one thing which no other fighter could. Don't recall exactly how he put it. But it was something caused by its wings, and that's that it could bank without losing energy while other fighters would stall. 

...

Kris


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2009)

Civettone said:


> A friend of mine whose dad was a F-4U pilot once told me that his dad said the Corsair was the best because it could do one thing which no other fighter could. Don't recall exactly how he put it. But it was something caused by its wings, and that's that it could bank without losing energy while other fighters would stall.
> 
> ...
> 
> Kris



Kris - That might have been his theory but probably without merit. All aircraft lose energy in a turn, but as long as the thrust available exceeds the amount required for that manuever it can maintain energy...and the F4U had plenty of power (and plenty of drag)

What causes the stall is when the bank angle and speed force an approach to maximum CL for the wing to provide the vertical lift component to sustain level flight - but that point is difficult to predict in theory and even more difficult to substantiate and repeat in flight tests. There are too many factors involved (trim drag, spanwise flow, aileron reversal, aeroelastic effects, etc)

What is possibly true is that the outboard gull section could be adding a very slight increment to the vertical lift component of the wings - but conversely the inboard (down wing) section should stall out first... so hard to know.

Additional considerations regarding the effectiveness of the Gull sections is that both up and down wing sections are totally immersed in the turbulent flow behind the prop.

In short I doubt it - but remain open minded to the possibility.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2009)

renrich said:


> A little far afield but I have often speculated that overall the Corsair might have been the best fighter in the US arsenal. Began thinking about some readily accomplished modifications which would have made the Corsair more suitable for the ETO and lightening the AC by removing the tail hook and making the wing non folding would have resulted in a little less weight and better performance.
> Actually there were a number of Corsairs built by Goodyear that did not have tailhooks or folding wings and I have never seen any tests of that model which show how the weight loss affected it's performance. The F4U1 had wing tanks, not self sealing but with a CO2 purge system. It had an internal fuel capacity of 361 gallons which gave it a "yardstick" range of around 1500 miles. A realistic combat radius of around 550 miles was possible off of land bases with that fuel load.
> The original XF4U had two MGs mounted above the engine. The F4U1 production AC had the fuselage lengthened by around 3 feet so that fuselage fuel tank counld be accomodated and the guns removed to the wings with the six fifties supplied with 400 rounds each except for the two outboard guns which had 375 rounds each because of wing taper.
> 
> ...



So, these are my thoughts about the improvement ideas. 

To get 400 plus gallons in the a/c in this notion, the fuse probably has to extended to be able to put more fuel aft of cockpit for both space and cg, the winspan probably has to increase ~ 5 feet to jam the fuel into a tapering wing outboard of the gear, and get rid of USN carrier qual as result of gross weight, and low speed performance due to the weight increase of extra wing span, wing fold issues, added weight of fuse and wing structure as you shift weight away from the cg.

God knows how it now handles in ACM although extra wing with fuel gone makes it climb and turn better - but significanly less manueverable in first half of mission - and lower payload, longer run on takeoff.

I like the Corsair that actually flew - better.


----------



## renrich (Oct 10, 2009)

Bill, many thanks for your, as usual, well informed post about my adventure into aircraft redesign. I have a cutaway drawing of the production Cosair which shows a bay with accesory equipment in it, just in front of the fuel bay and just behind the engine. It looks to me that the prototype, I don't have a cutaway of it, had that same space and it looks in photos like the top of that space was where the receivers of the MGs and ammo was located with the barrels of the MGs passing over the engine and the rounds exiting though holes in the outward edge of the engine cowling. In the production models, the MG receivers and ammo belts would be positioned in that upper portion of the bay in front of the fuel tank bay, just aft of the leading edge of the wing, thus possibly not causing much of a shift in CG with ammo use and the fuselage fuel tank would remain the same. The prototype carried 273 gallons of fuel in the wings, all outboard of the landing gear, I believe. The production models had 62 gallons in each wing for a total of 124 gallons in the wings. If the wing tanks in my hypothetical AC carried say 230 gallons in the wings, factoring in capacity lost for SS tanks or even 273 gallons if the tanks had the CO2 purge system, the range would get a significant boost. In the escort role, the wing tanks would be full and used first, just like the 85 gallon tank aft of the pilot in the P51 and just like what the F4U1 did with the 124 gallons in the wings. In other roles where the additional range was not needed, the wing tanks would be empty. With the wing guns deleted except for the 20 mms in the wing roots and with wing tanks empty, would not the Corsair have an increased roll rate? In the cutaway, since I know the Corsair fuselage was extended around three feet to accomodate the fuselage fuel tank, the bay for the accesories and the bay for the fuel tank both look to be about three feet long, which would accomodate the receivers for the 50 BMGs. Not sure about ammo storage but the prototype had room for it without the fuselage extension. Also the cutaway shows the wing root section looks to be empty space behind the wing spar so the two cannon look like there is room for them, one in each wing root. Not being an engineer, much less an aero engineer, I am probably all wet, but I am having fun with it. Bill, what say you?


----------



## renrich (Oct 11, 2009)

Another point about the Corsair which occurs to me while looking at the cutaway drawing is the infamous oil cooler. The oil cooler is located just inside of the outboard edge of the intake opening in the port wing root. The inboard edge has an intake for the intercooler for the supercharger. The oil cooler is connected to the oil tank, 20 gallon capacity, which is mounted just forward of the fuselage fuel tank and is protected in front by a piece of armor and from behind and above by the fuel tank armor. The oil cooler and this is approximate, looks like about a foot in diameter and about a foot deep. Looks like a small target to me but there are also the oil lines connecting it to the oil tank. (An aside, a cutaway of the Hawker Sea Fury shows the oil cooler in the same location.) I don't know if there is an oil cooler in the starboard wing root or not but my guess is there is not.

There has been a lot of debate here about that oil cooler and whether or not it played a significant role in losses of the Corsair in WW2 and Korea. It seems to me that looking at the AC as a whole, that the oil cooler and the lines connecting it to the tank represent a very small portion of the F4U as a target. Kind of like the brain of an elephant. One may recall that Karamojo Bell killed a lot of elephant with a 6.5 Mannlicher and a 7x57 Mauser. That record would indicate that an elephant is easy to kill. Looking closer though, Bell killed his many elephants when they were very plentiful and he got so close that the muzzle was practically in the ear and that very small, long and puny bullet only had to penetrate some soft tissue to destroy the brain. Trying to make that shot from 75 or 100 yards would be a matter of luck. It seems to me that looking at the relative vulnerability of the Corsair and it's oil cooler versus the Hellcat or Jug with their oil cooler locations doen't give a very big edge to the Hellcat or Jug. In other words, how often, when those aircraft are being shot at do the oil coolers actually get hit. To me, the coolant system in a liquid cooled engine would be a much, much, larger target.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 11, 2009)

Ren - I can't make an informed comment as I don't have the drawings of the Xf4U and F4U -1 in front of me.

Off hand - replacing each 62 gallon wing tank with an inboard 20mm cannon plus ammo is a fair trade off . The swap of 3x 50 plus the ammo for the outboard fuel tanks is not as good a trade until about 1/3 of the fuel is burned away.

There was a lot of fuselage space for the 85 gallon tank and it took up about 3 feet back there (for 11 cubic feet of fuel). The cross section of the corsair was larger but I still wonder how much fuel could be accomodated in addition to oil cooler ducting and cooler plus guns/ammo. There is an additional question about ducting and heat transfer over the oid cooler as it would be in a fairly hot environment behind the engine


----------



## renrich (Oct 11, 2009)

In retrospect, I think the oil cooler should stay where it was originally located like an elephant's brain. The bay where the 50 BMGs would be located contains the following: a hydraulic reservoir, supercharger housing, fire suppressor cylinder, the oil tank and armor, intake air duct for supercharger, the intercooler for the supercharger and some engine support frames. I assume that the XF4U had the same bay with the same accesories and the 2 MGs located right behind the engine. If you delete the 6-50s from the wings and 2350 rounds you lose 1125 pounds. If you add 2-20mms plus 200 rounds of ammo each you add 504 pounds and 2- 50s plus 1000 rounds adds another 440 pounds for a net loss of 176 pounds.If you add the wing tanks with 230 gallons of fuel instead of 124 gallons your net gain in fuel weight is around 600 pounds plus a little more for bigger wing tanks but the loss of 176 pounds in guns and ammo offset that a little. So, in the escort role the Corsair with full internal fuel would be carrying an additional weight of around 500 or so pounds. Since the Corsair could carry an exterior bomb load of easily 2000 pounds, that 500 pounds extra would not be a problem at all for a landbased ETO escort fighter. Now, I am not saying the ETO optimised Corsair I am proposing would replace the P51 B, C or D but rather supplement it and perhaps be available for long range escort 6 months before the Mustang.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 11, 2009)

The F4U was my second favorite Allied fighter for all the reasons stated here... with respect to ETO I think it would have done as well or better than the P-47 but reminded that its best performance altitude was closer to Fw 190 and Me 109 than the P-51 and that the 51 was best where the LW had to play with the bombers..


----------



## renrich (Oct 11, 2009)

Agree Bill. Actually, one of my sources says the Xf4u was initially armed with a 30 cal and 50 cal in the nose and a 50 cal in each wing. It also had small bomb bays in the wings besides the fuel tanks. I did not know that about the wing mounted MGs in the prototype. The prototype was 31 feet 11 inches long and the F4U1 was 33 feet 4 and three quarters inches long.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Kris - That might have been his theory but probably without merit. All aircraft lose energy in a turn, but as long as the thrust available exceeds the amount required for that manuever it can maintain energy...and the F4U had plenty of power (and plenty of drag)
> 
> What causes the stall is when the bank angle and speed force an approach to maximum CL for the wing to provide the vertical lift component to sustain level flight - but that point is difficult to predict in theory and even more difficult to substantiate and repeat in flight tests. There are too many factors involved (trim drag, spanwise flow, aileron reversal, aeroelastic effects, etc)
> 
> ...


Yeah I don't know either ... 

Kris


----------



## schlosser (Dec 21, 2009)

DUDE THE 110 WAS A DISATER. It was considered a failer


----------



## Njaco (Dec 21, 2009)

and can you give your reasons why you believe that?


----------



## Erich (Dec 21, 2009)

no he can't bud, I just kicked him in his own Schiest


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2009)

schlosser said:


> DUDE THE 110 WAS A DISATER. It was considered a failer



Amazing - too bad abortion can't be retro active.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 21, 2009)

didn't realize till I read his other posts. Its 8 o'clock, do you know where your child is?


----------



## vinnye (Dec 30, 2009)

Hi guys - I've just joined the forum. A very interesting discussion .....

If I may add my 2 cents and without reading all the pages on this thread: but I have read some of the early and later pages to try to familiarie myself !

1.) Training / experience can lessen the odds and make up for inferior equipment - eg SBD V Zero.
It must also be remembered that the LW and IJAF had both been at war practising their tactics before applting them on the Allies! 
2.) Morale and motivation - the Finns Czech and Poles had lots of it especially fighting for their homeland - whether before, durin or after the B of B.
3.) Some planes were simply easier or harder to fly eg stall characteristics, stick and rudder balance, the actual physical effort required to fly the plane. eg the propeller torque on the Griffon engined Spitfires and its narrow landing gear accounted for many an unfortunate green pilot - especially when used from a carrier!
4.) Tactics again as in no 1 above. The RAF suffered many avoidable losses in ETO and the Pacific - due to strict adherance to outdated tactics. When newer tactics were employed they had better success - no suprise there!

I would put the C47 up there as a plane that enabled the war to be won - but my vote would go th the Spitfire - just look at the number of modifications it went through! It also spawned the Seafire, Spiteful, Seafang and ultimately you could argue the Suermarine Attacker!

I would acknowledge the Bf109 - in all its guises and the awesome Fw190 - especially the Ta152!
The Tempest, P47 and Mosquito are also some of my favourite Warbirds.


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jan 2, 2010)

Just out of curiousity, did anyone know that the Fw 190 A and D are being built again? Brand spanking new! It's being built again by a company called Flugwerk in Germany. I think they also have plans to build the P-51D but instead of calling it a Mustang, they will call it a Palimino. I saw some photos and videos that they published. They look sweet!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2010)

vinnye said:


> Hi guys - I've just joined the forum. A very interesting discussion .....
> 
> If I may add my 2 cents and without reading all the pages on this thread: but I have read some of the early and later pages to try to familiarie myself !
> 
> ...



Why pick a combat plane that had a limited impact in the war but soon was put out to pasture? The best all round aircraft of WW2 was the C-47, and was probably the greatest aircraft ever built.

And Vinnie, please don't use large fonts....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 2, 2010)

Night Fighter Nut said:


> Just out of curiousity, did anyone know that the Fw 190 A and D are being built again? Brand spanking new! It's being built again by a company called Flugwerk in Germany. I think they also have plans to build the P-51D but instead of calling it a Mustang, they will call it a Palimino. I saw some photos and videos that they published. They look sweet!



Old news - BTW an outfit in the springs is building a Mustang and putting "Scatterbrain Kid" back together as well as a P-38E


----------



## Night Fighter Nut (Jan 2, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The best all round aircraft of WW2 was the C-47, and was probably the greatest aircraft ever built....



I agree with you on that one. That was a great airplane. 

Thanks by the way. I didn't know if it was known about the Fw 190's or not. I should have known it would be old news for this crowd.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2010)

Night Fighter Nut said:


> Thanks by the way. I didn't know if it was known about the Fw 190's or not. I should have known it would be old news for this crowd.



I actually got to see one of them fly back in September near Stuttgart, Germany.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/pe...d-timer-airshow-2009-sept-5-2009-a-20551.html


----------



## vinnye (Jan 5, 2010)

FLYBOYJ ; My apologies for using a larger font size - not shouting - just a little easier for me to read!

I chose the Spitfire because of its inspirational looks for the time it was developed and the performance that it gave throughout its career. In its earliest guises it was a capable fighter - even though it would have benefited from 0.50 cal rather than 0.303 machine guns. It also frequently had the gund set for too long a range - which was corrected by senior pilots later on.
It proved itself to be an airframe that was very versatile and able to be modified effectively whenver the need arose. 
It fulfilled a number of roles - very well in most cases!
It with the Hurricane enabled Britain to stay in the war and not be invaded. A fairly important fact!
I am not and never have been a member of the Armed Forces - so can not talk from direct experience - only what I have read / seen / heard. So my apologies for any mistakes / errors! 
I do acknowledge the courage and commitment of the Armed Forces and the role that they have played and still play in keepeing us free and (relatively) safe. Without their bravery and sacrifice - we would not enjoy the freedoms that we often take for granted!
Again I acknowledge the role played by the Dakota in the logistics required to keep in combat.
But if the fighters had not done their job in enabling the transports to do their jod - relatively un-molested then they would have failed - great aircraft or not!
Once again it is for this reason that I voted for the Spitfire - it performed well from the get go - until the end of the war. It was successful in most theatres in which it saw service - taking into account poor tactics and inexperienced pilots. Once modifications were made to make the AC suitable for the conditions - or more MKs deployed to the non ETO's - the AC did OK.
The Spitfire also lead to naval versions and one could argue (a bit tentaively!) that it also played a role in the Supermarine Attacker - a jet engined version!
Not bad for an old crate!


----------



## Waynos (Jan 5, 2010)

vinnye, I agree that the Spitfire was one of the greatest aircraft of the war, if not ever. It was the onbly fighter, for instance, that was in the forefront of fighter perfomrance at the beginning of the war and still there at the end too, coupled to the fact that Britain was in the war for longer than any other nation, it makes the achievement even more remarkable.

While I also agree with FlyboyJ's advocacy of the C-47 for all the redsons he stated in previous posts. I must say I find the statement "Why pick a combat plane that had a limited impact in the war but soon was put out to pasture?" very odd.

Limited impact? It inspired a nation! Even without its combat record (which was far from 'limited), I think that is every bit as important as hauling crates

And it what sense was it put out to pasture 'soon'? it was a frontline fighter, still, as late as 1948, serving until 1954 in the RAF and for a further decade after that with some overseas airforces. it fought on the front line of every theatre until the end of war. 

I'm sure you know what you are talking about flyboyJ, many many posts from you have illustrated this amply, but that comment on the Spitfire was rather dismissive wasn't it?

Vinnye, the Attacker was developed initially as the 'Jet Spiteful' so is indeed a direct descendant of the Mk1 Spitfire in that sense, although its a bit like Triggers Broom by this stage ( Fools and Horses reference for non uK readers - He had the same broom for 23 years working for the council, it only had 17 new heads and ten new handles!) so, as it was a swept wing Attacker, you could include the Swift as well if you like, even though that one was pants.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 5, 2010)

Late-mark Spitfires: around 730 km/h
Late Bf 109s: around 720 km/h

Comparable ceiling and climb.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 5, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Late-mark Spitfires: around 730 km/h
> Late Bf 109s: around 720 km/h
> 
> Comparable ceiling and climb.



I'm too stupid to know what those figures mean in real measurements (mph  ) but the point is clear enough. On the one hand I should have said 'allied fighter'.

On the other, sources Ive read state that while the Spit and 109 tended to leapfrog each other with each subsequent version (starting with the 109 ahead) from the Spitfire IX onwards the Spitfire was always better than the 109 with the 1944-45 models being far better overall.

That said, I wouldn't have too much argument against anyone that wanted to nominate the 109 as their greatest of the war, or the P-51 either come to that, anything that has 'iconic' status naturally has a claim. I just think that Vinnye has a good case and I'm on his side with the Spitfire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2010)

Waynos said:


> vinnye, I agree that the Spitfire was one of the greatest aircraft of the war, if not ever. It was the onbly fighter, for instance, that was in the forefront of fighter perfomrance at the beginning of the war and still there at the end too, coupled to the fact that Britain was in the war for longer than any other nation, it makes the achievement even more remarkable.



Not true on either account.

The Bf 109 was in the same category performance wise as the Spitfire at the end of the war. The Germans would develop a Bf 109 that was better, then the Brits would do a Spit that outdid the 109, and then the Germans would contra it, and it went like this from the beginning to the end.

To say the Bf 109G and K were not as good performance wise as the Spits is wrong...

Germany technically was in the war longer than the Brits, so to say that the British were in the war the longest is wrong as well. Sorry to be technical about it...



Waynos said:


> On the other, sources Ive read state that while the Spit and 109 tended to leapfrog each other with each subsequent version (starting with the 109 ahead) from the Spitfire IX onwards the Spitfire was always better than the 109 with the 1944-45 models being far better overall.



Not true either, I think you will find that the Spit and Bf 109 were far closer to each other throughout the whole war, with both having advantages and disadvantages over the other.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 5, 2010)

Hi Adler, I don't believe anything that you said precludes the Spitfire being at the upper end of fighter capabilities, does it? I readiliy accept the Bf 109 is in the same bracket so that was an oversight on my part, but both the Spit and the 109 were at the forefront of fighter performance throughout the war and were unique in this respect. The sources I have read (Price, Glancey, Quill, McKinstry) all say the ultimate versions of the 109 were 'ruined' and the rival Spitfire models were better fighter aircraft. I am not a techie so that is why I must cite them instead of providing my own evidence.

Britain ( and the commonwealth = dont want to offend our colonial cousins  )was in the war longer than anyone else. We declared war on 3rd Sept 1939, 2 days after the invasion of Poland, and continued to fight until the surrender of Japan in August 1945. How could Germany have been in longer than that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Hi Adler, I don't believe anything that you said precludes the Spitfire being at the upper end of fighter capabilities, does it? I readiliy accept the Bf 109 is in the same bracket so that was an oversight on my part, but both the Spit and the 109 were at the forefront of fighter performance throughout the war and were unique in this respect. The sources I have read (Price, Glancey, Quill, McKinstry) all say the ultimate versions of the 109 were 'ruined' and the rival Spitfire models were better fighter aircraft. I am not a techie so that is why I must cite them instead of providing my own evidence.



No you are correct that the Spit was an aircraft at the top, but to say that it was the only aircraft that was continually at the top from the beginning of the war to the end is false. One of them at the top yes, but the only...



Waynos said:


> Britain ( and the commonwealth = dont want to offend our colonial cousins  )was in the war longer than anyone else. We declared war on 3rd Sept 1939, 2 days after the invasion of Poland, and continued to fight until the surrender of Japan in August 1945. How could Germany have been in longer than that?



Excuse me I was thinking Europe only at that moment. My mistake...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2010)

vinnye said:


> Again I acknowledge the role played by the Dakota in the logistics required to keep in combat.
> But if the fighters had not done their job in enabling the transports to do their jod - relatively un-molested then they would have failed - great aircraft or not!!



Cart before the horse Vinnye. During WW2 fighter escort for transports were only required in very limited areas. The reason why I stand by the C-47 is because its entire configuration, systems, handling characteristics set the benchmark for all future military and commercial transports. Do you know that there are still 100 or more DC-3s C-47s still in service today? What other WW2 aircraft could claim 70 years in active service in substantial numbers?!?!?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2010)

Not only that, but the Israeli Air Force had C-47s in service until 1999! Some of those C-47s flew on D-Day, then served for France and Belgium before the Israelis bought them. Those aircraft saw continuous military use from about 1943-44 through 1999. That's an impressive record. I think the C-47 was the greatest aircraft ever made.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 6, 2010)

> No you are correct that the Spit was an aircraft at the top, but to say that it was the only aircraft that was continually at the top from the beginning of the war to the end is false. One of them at the top yes, but the only...



I wrote 'In the forefront' to mean 'amongst the best' not actually the best . I think that is where we had the disjoin.

What was the performance gain on the Bf109 between 1939 and 1945? I believe that no individual fighter aircraft gained as much as the Spitfire did over its wartime career.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2010)

Max speed in level flight (only major production models):

Bf 109B: 277 mph (446 km/h)
Bf 109C: 309 mph (498 km/h)
Bf 109D: 293 mph (471 km/h)
Bf 109E: 345 mph (555 km/h)
Bf 109F: 370 mph (595 km/h)
Bf 109G: 403 mph (650 km/h)
Bf 109K: 452 mph (728 km/h)

That makes a gain of 175 mph (282 km/h). Not sure if that is more or less than the Spitfire though. If I recall however the Spit MK1 had a top speed of 367 mph (582 km/h) and the F MK.24 had a top speed of 454 mph (731 km/h). So again both are very comparable. 

In the end however there is way more to it than just speed. You have to take into account all performance, handling, etc. I think it is a safe bet to say that overall they were very well evenly matched throughout their careers. Both having advantages and disadvantages over the other, and both taking the lead in superiority over the other many times throughout the war. 

Either way, they are both two of the greatest piston fighters built.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 6, 2010)

Thats an impressive gain. The biggest problem with maximum speeds during level flight - is at what altitude?
I have seen figures for Spitfire Mk 1 as 362 mph at 18,500ft and for a Mk21 as 455 at 25,600 ft. Which makes a straight comparison alittle difficult!


----------



## Waynos (Jan 7, 2010)

Adler, agreed. I forgot that the first version of the 109 in service was as slow as that so that is a very impressive gain indeed. It was said of the Spitfire that it grew in weight by the equivalent of 36 passengers and all their luggage. Do you have any information on the weight gain of the 109? Being a more compact airframe did it manage not to pile on so much?

My search for a reliable definitive history of the 109 has been fruitless, do you have any recommendations? I think I have enough Spitfire books.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2010)

vinnye said:


> Thats an impressive gain. The biggest problem with maximum speeds during level flight - is at what altitude?
> I have seen figures for Spitfire Mk 1 as 362 mph at 18,500ft and for a Mk21 as 455 at 25,600 ft. Which makes a straight comparison alittle difficult!



Absolutely correct!



Waynos said:


> Adler, agreed. I forgot that the first version of the 109 in service was as slow as that so that is a very impressive gain indeed. It was said of the Spitfire that it grew in weight by the equivalent of 36 passengers and all their luggage. Do you have any information on the weight gain of the 109? Being a more compact airframe did it manage not to pile on so much?



I will see when I get home.



Waynos said:


> My search for a reliable definitive history of the 109 has been fruitless, do you have any recommendations? .



I can recommend some when I get home as well.


----------



## CrotalusKid (Jan 10, 2010)

While one can never say what the "best aircraft" of the war was, I certainly respect the JU 88's ability to overcome obsolescence and fill other niches. Maybe there should be a thread concerning the "most versatile" aircraft of the war......


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

I'm sure that everyone will agree that the best aircraft of WW2 was the Spitfire Mk VIII: high speed, long ranged, fast climbing, deadly firepower.

The Spitfire VIII served around the world and was very popular with the USAAF squadrons that flew it:
http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2008/07/uncle-sams-spitfires.htm


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2010)

???


----------



## evangilder (Jan 11, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> I'm sure that everyone will agree that the best aircraft of WW2 was the Spitfire Mk VIII: high speed, long ranged, fast climbing, deadly firepower.
> 
> The Spitfire VIII served around the world and was very popular with the USAAF squadrons that flew it:
> http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2008/07/uncle-sams-spitfires.htm



I am sure everyone will agree that you haven't read through the pages of this thread.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> I'm sure that everyone will agree that the best aircraft of WW2 was the Spitfire Mk VIII: high speed, long ranged, fast climbing, deadly firepower.
> 
> The Spitfire VIII served around the world and was very popular with the USAAF squadrons that flew it:
> http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2008/07/uncle-sams-spitfires.htm



Does it still fly in an operational role today? (Other than in a museum). Has it hauled thousands if not millions of people and freight from all corners of the world??? Has it served in almost every major conflict up until the mid 1980s????

Too much testosterone...


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Does it still fly in an operational role today? (Other than in a museum). Has it hauled thousands if not millions of people and freight from all corners of the world??? Has it served in almost every major conflict up until the mid 1980s????



Well the Norseman was a good plane, but I'm not sure it edges out the Spitfire...

Noorduyn Norseman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Well the Norseman was a good plane, but I'm not sure it edges out the Spitfire...
> 
> Noorduyn Norseman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It was a good plane but it didn't set the presidence for modern military or civilian aircraft that would be a benchmark for 60 years. That would be the C-47/ DC-3


----------



## Loiner (Feb 23, 2010)

If picking the best aircraft for gaining the most effective service through the war, then there must be a number of contenders:

Spitfire, continually developed from 1940 to beyond '45, 
BF109, continually developed from pre 1939 to '45
Il2 Sturmovik, work horse of Soviet ground attack, and most numerous military aircraft ever built 
F4F Wildcat, I believe shot down more enemy aircraft than any other type (correct me if I'm wrong on that)
P47 Thunderbolt, continually developed from 1942 to '45, widely used allied attack aircraft and long range fighter
C47 Skytrain, ubiquitous allied transport and para-drop aircraft
B29 Super Fortress, first truly strategic bomber, war winner, and most technically advanced aircraft of the war

It would be difficult to pick a best out of the above.

There are others that are not far behind this list:

Hurricane
Mosquito
Halifax
Lancaster
P51 Mustang
P38 Lightnning
F6 Hellcat
F4U Corsair
SBD Dauntless
A6M 'Zero'
Me262 (as the first operational jet fighter in widespread use)
FW190
JU88
B24 Liberator
B17 Flying Fortress


----------



## Kurfürst (Feb 25, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Adler, agreed. I forgot that the first version of the 109 in service was as slow as that so that is a very impressive gain indeed. It was said of the Spitfire that it grew in weight by the equivalent of 36 passengers and all their luggage. Do you have any information on the weight gain of the 109? Being a more compact airframe did it manage not to pile on so much?



The first 109Bs were around 2200 kg. The last one, the 109K-4 weighted 3362 kg, the so the gain was about 1,1 tons, plus in the meantime horsepower was _tripled_.



> My search for a reliable definitive history of the 109 has been fruitless, do you have any recommendations? I think I have enough Spitfire books.



The best one is undeniably Prien/Rodeike's Bf 109F-K. Highly recommendable for the later variants.
Radinger-Otto's 109F-K book is a good companion to it, as it has some interesting information, but its not so good alone as a standalone book.
Jean-Claude Mermet's Bf 109 guide can be found on the internet in PDF. Also highly recommended. 
One that I found also very informative was Mathmann-Zobel's Bf 109 book. These ones are mostly free of errors that of popular books.
In addition, just about any of the Janda-Poruba books (K-4, K-4 camo, G-10/U4) are very highly recommended. Excellent photos, latest research, very through and has things nobody else.

For the earlier versions, its a difficult question. I know Radinger-Otto has a book the A-E variants, but I can't comment on it, its probably nice and well researched. Lynn Ritger also published a book on, I have the one for the early versions, which is also one of the best ones. Actually, the old Squadron Signal 109 volumes (two of them) are also rather good, even if some information - esp. on late variants - is now obsolate.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 28, 2010)

Kurfurst, thank you for that information. Now for an assault on ebay perhaps


----------



## Bullo Loris (Mar 29, 2010)

The best was P-51 Mustang, the bad was P-39 Airacobra, its only my opinion...


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2010)

And that's because...?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2010)

Bullo Loris said:


> The best was P-51 Mustang, the bad was P-39 Airacobra, its only my opinion...



Fighters - too much testosterone


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 29, 2010)

yeah but without them those big juicy bombers and transports are fish in a barrel. pre escort mission losses reflect that. long range fighter escort hastened the end of the war but letting accruate daylight bombing deep into the industrial heart of german occupied countries. without that germany would have had more ability to produce tanks, planes, ball bearings, fuel, etc. without the ability to keep producing war products the potential to sustain came into jeopardy and attrition became a increasing factor. US factories were never in fear of sustaining war damage and thus cranked to full production. the soviets moved their plants closer to siberia well away from the range of german bombers. because of that the soviet war machine cranked out huge numbers of tanks, aircraft, etc...because of the huge area of "insulation" between its industrial sector and the front. with vast numbers of factories in southern germany, austria, the eastern countries. these facilities would have enjoyed the same "insulation" as the russian and US. in order to destroy them would have taken very long flights over enemy held areas and the survival rate of bomber aircraft would have been ghastly. there were many other factors which contributed to the demise of the 3rd reich. for the bombers and transports to effectively achieve the stratigic goals for which they were intended and designed...without long range ( 6 to 7 hour flight time ) escorts would not have happened. and i will say this as well....the allies could have fielded 4 times the escorts that they did...but without the bombers ability to destroy the industrial might of the axis the war would have lasted many more years....to possibly a stalemate. this is like saying which link of the chain is the best....?? its the link that repairs the break so that the whole chain can do its job...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> yeah but without them those big juicy bombers and transports are fish in a barrel...



Sorry bobby, but you have it backwards and I make that statement for the C-47. Not only "The Best" over all aircraft of WW2 but probably the greatest aircraft ever built.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 29, 2010)

thats what makes a free country great....differing opinions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> thats what makes a free country great....differing opinions.



And C-47s that still fly!


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 29, 2010)

and the fighters that let them enjoy free air space...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> and the fighters that let them enjoy free air space...



Yep!


----------



## zoomar (Mar 29, 2010)

My off-the-top-of-the-head list follows. To be included planes had to have been produced in large numbers and in squadron service by 1943 - thus German jets and B-29 not allowed.

Best all-round single-seat single engine fighter - P-51
Best all-round single seat twin engine fighter - P-38
Best multi place twin engined fighter - Me-410
Best fighter bomber - Fw-190F/G
Best naval carrier fighter - F4U Corsair
Best naval carrier dive bomber - SBD Dauntless
Best naval carrier torpedo bomber - B6N
Best all-round close support ground attack - Il-2 Sturmovik
Best all-round Light bomber - Mosquito
Best all-round Medium Bomber - B-25
Best all-round Heavy Bomber- Lancaster
Best all-round transport - C-47
Beat all-round Liaison/small tactical recon - Fi-156
Best long range recon - Mosquito
Best naval ship borne recon/spotter - OSU2 Kingfisher

If I had to pick a best overall - a plane that symbolized all that is great and wonderful about WW2 aviation, my choice would not even be on the above list. It would be the *Supermarine Spitfire*.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2010)

zoomar said:


> If I had to pick a best overall - a plane that symbolized all that is great and wonderful about WW2 aviation, my choice would not even be on the above list. It would be the *Supermarine Spitfire*.



No one can argue the Spitfire's contribution to the war effort and the impact it made on aviation, BUT there was nothing that ground breaking or innovative about the design that makes it any real different than any other fighter of the period. By 1945 all these wonderful piston engine fighters were basically obsolete and quickly overshadowed by the jet. By the late 40s you can see their caresses strewn across countrysides and airports. The C-47/ DC-3 set the benchmark for design, system integration, maintainability and operating cost that can be found on modern transport aircraft today. I substantiate this statement by the amount of DC-3s still operational, and I'm not talking about flying with a museum group.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 30, 2010)

It must have had something though to be the only piston aircraft ever to record m=0.9 in a dive, faster than any wartime jet and also more than the much vaunted laminar flow winged Spiteful, which came as a great disappointment to Supermarine. It must have been a bit gutting too for Joe Smith who had so marvellously developed his old boss' design, that his own fighter was no better and in some areas worse.

Somehow the Spitifre is a plane that is greater than the sum of its parts. I think that description is also apt for the Dakota as wel, if in a different way.


----------



## Glider (Mar 30, 2010)

In terms of the title of the thread the difference between the Spitfire and the C47 was that the C47 was head and shoulders above all other transports in the impact they had on the war. There were transports that could carry more and further but none came close to dominance of the C47. I cannot think of another plane that was produced by both the Allied (Russia and USA) and Axis (Japan).

The Spitfire while having a significant impact always had close competitors and at times was second best. For instance in the early years it didn't dominate the 109, it was as good as the 109. In 1942 it was second to the 190 unti the IX arrived and even then it was as good as the 190, not better. 
It didn't have the universal dominance that the C47 had in its role. Also as FJ points out, the C47 is still going strong around the world in its original role, nothing comes close.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 30, 2010)

While the claim of the Dak is faultless, I was responding mainly to the fact that zoomar specifically said that, for him, the Spitfire was "a plane that symbolized all that is great and wonderful about WW2 aviation". That applies for me too. I don't think the Dak _belongs_ to WW2. It is timeless, which is further proof of its greatness of course, but more people will think 'Spitfire' than will think 'C-47' if asked for a symbol of that conflict.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2010)

Waynos said:


> It is timeless



Nuff said...


----------



## zoomar (Mar 30, 2010)

Waynos said:


> While the claim of the Dak is faultless, I was responding mainly to the fact that zoomar specifically said that, for him, the Spitfire was "a plane that symbolized all that is great and wonderful about WW2 aviation". That applies for me too. I don't think the Dak _belongs_ to WW2. It is timeless, which is further proof of its greatness of course, but more people will think 'Spitfire' than will think 'C-47' if asked for a symbol of that conflict.



I couldn't have said this better! Some of my earliest childood memories involve my dad often taking me and my sister to our local municipal airport to watch Central Airlines DC-3s taxi right up to the terminal. The sound of those big radials revving and idling and feeling of the propwash blowing my hair was simply transcendent. Once I got to go to Tulsa (or maybe Wichita, I don't exactly remember) on a Dc-3. The DC-3/C-47 is symbolic of whole era of aviation, and what's more a few are actually still in real service. The Spit, with its tight but comfortable cockpit, RAF camoflage, and growling Merlin IS the archtypical WW2 fighter. The absolute greatest, even if not quite the "best".


----------



## Ishvayne (Jul 12, 2010)

The Tempest, I say. Very often underrated, always standing a bit behind the Spitfire, Typhoon, Thunderbolt and Mustang. But I think it was quite fast, well armed and successful in dogfighting, interception (remember the V1) and ground attack. I think one of the best... if not the best allround fighter of WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2010)

Here we go again...

Fighters - too much testosterone


----------



## Kryten (Jul 20, 2010)

I'm going to pitch a vote in for the typhoon, wars are won on the ground and the Tiffie did more to hasten the allied advance than any other aircraft, which brought the war to a close!

so I'm going for the Typhoon!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2010)

Kryten said:


> I'm going to pitch a vote in for the typhoon, wars are won on the ground and the Tiffie did more to hasten the allied advance than any other aircraft, which brought the war to a close!
> 
> so I'm going for the Typhoon!



How did the Typhoon contribute more to the allied advance than any other aircraft?


----------



## zoomar (Jul 21, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How did the Typhoon contribute more to the allied advance than any other aircraft?



Like, for example the Il-2 Sturmovik. People need to remember that it was Russian armies advancing in the east that bled the Wehrmacht dry and captured Berlin. That "allied advance" was far more important to the final defeat of Nazi Germany than anything the Typhoon did in the close air support role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2010)

zoomar said:


> Like, for example the Il-2 Sturmovik. People need to remember that it was Russian armies advancing in the east that bled the Wehrmacht dry and captured Berlin. That "allied advance" was far more important to the final defeat of Nazi Germany than anything the Typhoon did in the close air support role.



And although it contributed greatly to the war effort, did it bring any technological or design breakthroughs that became the benchmark in ALL aircraft for the next 70 years? Was it designed in such a way that those who were completing maintenance on the aircraft were able to do so with minimal equipment? And lastly, did it bring longevity to the point where the aircraft actually paid for itself several times over during the life of its operational career?

Think outside the box and try to grasp what "the best" really means. It doesn't have to be the fastest, biggest, deadliest or even carry a bomb load, but look at how it contributed to the war effort, the effect it left on aviation history, how it compared to it's peers and finally its cost effectivness to operate. There is one clear winner here, the DC-3/ C-47.


----------



## Kryten (Jul 21, 2010)

You guys are right, I was just being contentious, and as the Tiffie rarely gets a mention I thought I would give it a MID.

Mike.


----------



## zoomar (Jul 23, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And although it contributed greatly to the war effort, did it bring any technological or design breakthroughs that became the benchmark in ALL aircraft for the next 70 years? Was it designed in such a way that those who were completing maintenance on the aircraft were able to do so with minimal equipment? And lastly, did it bring longevity to the point where the aircraft actually paid for itself several times over during the life of its operational career?
> 
> Think outside the box and try to grasp what "the best" really means. It doesn't have to be the fastest, biggest, deadliest or even carry a bomb load, but look at how it contributed to the war effort, the effect it left on aviation history, how it compared to it's peers and finally its cost effectivness to operate. There is one clear winner here, the DC-3/ C-47.



I disagree with your definition of "best", which to me sounds more like "greatest". I would agree with you that the DC-3/C-47 is probably the "greatest" fixed wing aircraft of all time, period, but that doesn't equate to "best". Even by the early post-war period, the DC-3 was probably no longer the "best" transport plane in the air. As you imply, being the "best" at something means it can be compared via meaningful measurement with its peers. The C-47's legitimate peers during the WW2 period were planes like the Ju-52, C-46, SM-72 variants, etc, and in that regard we can legitimately call it the "best". There is no way one can say the C-47 is "best" if one expands its group of peers to include planes like the Bf-109, Spitfire, B-17, etc for whom the measurement standards are different. One may consider it a "greater" plane than these (because this is to some extent a subjective call based on more than simply measurable performance), but it makes no sense to say it's a"better" plane than the Bf-109, because the way you measure quality in a fighter is different. To use a metaphor with sports, One can say the LA Lakers are the "best" basketball team in the USA if they win more games than any other NBA team and win the championship. It would be impossible to legitimately use the term "best" if one wanted to compare the Lakers with football or hockey teams. One could say they were the "greatest" team, perhaps, but not the best. By the way I am NOT a Lakers fan.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jul 23, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And although it contributed greatly to the war effort, did it bring any technological or design breakthroughs that became the benchmark in ALL aircraft for the next 70 years? Was it designed in such a way that those who were completing maintenance on the aircraft were able to do so with minimal equipment? And lastly, did it bring longevity to the point where the aircraft actually paid for itself several times over during the life of its operational career?



Well it did bring some very interesting advances - first of all it creates a whole new class of aircraft, close support ones, specially designed for the task. Its legacy is clearly there even todaz with the A-10/Su-25 and a dozen small prop/jet types like the Pucará. All of these were designated mud movers, quite unlike Stukas, Tiffies, Bolts hastily converted to the do the task. 

Construction wise, it also brought something new, as the armor plates were integrated into the structure, rather than just being an afterthough, with steel plates bolted onto the aluminium skin..


----------



## parsifal (Jul 23, 2010)

The C-47 was in my opinion the best transport aircraft during the war. It was a supremely reliable, with good range and payload, able to operate under the most appalling conditions. 

And then one needs to ask what is the most important mission that aircraft can undertake. the relative importance for mission types varies depending on the situation one finds oneself in. on the eastern front, for example, pure fighter ops were relatively inneffective, and therfore pure fighters were not that important. i ackowledge they wrre necessary, and that the germans in particular notched up massive tallies, but this had zero effect on the outcome of battles. transport aircraft were somewhat important, as they helped forward elements to remain supplied as the advance progresswd. level bombers had some impact as well, but the queen of the battlefield werre the ground attack aircraft. the vast frontages lessened the impact of fighters in their operations, and their effect on ground battles were often critical.

switch now to somewhere like the battles over germany. here it is arguable between fighters and heavy bombers as to which was the more important though most of the comptempary and post war theorists argue that it was the bombers that were the more important aircraft. the german efforts at fighter defence is seen as a strategic blind alley by most theorists, though the allied equivalent - the raf fighters over britain in 1940 appears to be the exception to the rule

if we look at the land battles over western europe, ground attack a/c are again important, though one has to include fb amd fighters in there as well. once again, though not operating at the very top of the importance meter, but important nevertheless are the transports one again.

in north africa the transports are supremely important, for both sides. once again, fighters tend to drop to the bottom of the pile

in the pacific, it is generally accepted that the most significant types were transports and recon aircraft . naval strike aircraft are also of notable significance 

if you look at the relative importance of the main types, and apply some sort of score to that role, the conclesion to be reached is that transports are the most best airraft during the eaer, because they have role in nearly every different category of theatre. fighters and ground support aircraft arespectqaculer, but they tend to be specialised. relatively speaking they less important. since c-47s are probably the best overall transports of the ware, and transports are the most important category of aircraft, it can be argued that the c-47 was the best a/c of wwii


----------



## jrw1238 (Jul 23, 2010)

zoomar said:


> I couldn't have said this better! Some of my earliest childood memories involve my dad often taking me and my sister to our local municipal airport to watch Central Airlines DC-3s taxi right up to the terminal. The sound of those big radials revving and idling and feeling of the propwash blowing my hair was simply transcendent.



This reminded me of when I was a child and my grandparents would would take me to, then. Berry Field in Nashville, TN. American and Eastern Airlines flew in there at that ime. I like you loved the sound of those big radials


----------



## Marcel (Jul 24, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Think outside the box and try to grasp what "the best" really means. It doesn't have to be the fastest, biggest, deadliest or even carry a bomb load, but look at how it contributed to the war effort, the effect it left on aviation history, how it compared to it's peers and finally its cost effectivness to operate. There is one clear winner here, the DC-3/ C-47.



Not so clear, take for instance the B29:
1. How did it effect the war effort: ended it with only 2 bombs
2. Effect on aviation history: Showed that an aircraft means that a major war cannot be won anymore.
3. Compared to it's peers? What active heavy bomber came anywhere close to this aircraft?
4. Cost effectiveness: 1 flight, 1 bomb, 1 city is the most cost effective way of ending a war (for the winner) that I can imagine.


Sorry Joe, couldn't resist


----------



## Conslaw (Sep 26, 2010)

My vote goes to the B-29 as well. I'm surprised that it's not more popular in this forum. The B-29 was really a contemporary of the B-17G but it was light years more advanced. It could carry twice the bomb load more than twice as far. The Japanese never really came up with any practical countermeasure. Imagine that the US lost every battle through 1943. Imagine there were no US outposts past Pearl Harbor. With the new carriers and other ships being built the US would have still been able to cross the ocean, take the Marianas and bomb Japan during 1944. With the B-29, Japan had to defend a perimeter over 1500 miles in radius just to keep their home islands safe. 

Here's another interesting factoid. The Army Air Corp. experimented with arial refueling in the 1920s but abandoned the project until after World War II more for lack of practical need than for lack of success. Suppose the US never undertook an offensive campaign against Japan until 1945. With the atomic bomb and mid-air refueling the US would have still been able to destroy Hiroshima from bases on US soil.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 26, 2010)

The B-29 was my view..the greatest...

It was one of the most expensive programs of ww2...hugely technological achievement...vastly capable...easily outperformed any like wise machine...stayed in service well after the war.

And taught the Soviets how to make big aircraft...

A B-29 carrying a nuclear bomb is what put the fear into Stalin...


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 26, 2010)

The Basket said:


> A B-29 carrying a nuclear bomb is what put the fear into Stalin...



Ive just been reading about the B 29 and the bomb since this thread was "bumped up". The B29 cost more than the Manhattan project which is a helluva achievement in itself.

Sadly the whole excercise just meant the world has had 3 generations living under mutually assured destruction, I hope Iran understands the rules.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 26, 2010)

B-29 - with or without the bomb: the B-29 raised the bar like no other operational aircraft except the M2-262 - and i_t _was never going to carry an A bomb.

MM


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 26, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> B-29 - with or without the bomb: the B-29 raised the bar like no other operational aircraft except the M2-262 - and i_t _was never going to carry an A bomb.
> 
> MM



Without the bomb the B 29 was another very very expensive bomber that needed escorting, a lancaster could drop a nuclear bomb but not at the range of a B29. Without a nuclear bomb to drop or cities made of paper to ignite at night the B29 would have been the most expensive flop in history. Its targets (hiroshima) and potential targets (Moscow) made its name.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Ive just been reading about the B 29 and the bomb since this thread was "bumped up". The B29 cost more than the Manhattan project which is a helluva achievement in itself.



that might depend on how the accounting was done. 

For instance the Chrysler corp. built a brand new factory just to build the R-3350 engines that had 82 acres under the roof. It was the only engine factory that took in raw materials at one end and put out finished engines at the other end. A redesign of the the factory structure saved enough steel to build 14 destroyers over the original building plans. Over 9,300 machine tools were needed to equip this factory. 

I am sure similar stories could be told about other parts of the program which all add to the total cost except that these factories and tooling did not go away. 
did the massive factories that built the B-29 airframes ( and were charged to the B-29 program) just vanish or were they used to build B-47s, B-52s and 707 airliners?
How much of the research and development that went into the B-29s gun turrets and fire control were used on the B-36?
As for the Chrysler corp and that factory and machine tools. See---

Ford City Complex Has A Past Most Don't Remember

Do you charge the entire build cost to the B-29 program?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 26, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Without the bomb the B 29 was another very very expensive bomber that needed escorting, a lancaster could drop a nuclear bomb but not at the range of a B29. Without a nuclear bomb to drop or cities made of paper to ignite at night the B29 would have been the most expensive flop in history. Its targets (hiroshima) and potential targets (Moscow) made its name.



If you ever flew any type of tail wheel aircraft, you would not want a nuke in the bomb bay of a Lancaster, even during takeoffs in calm winds.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 26, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you ever flew any type of tail wheel aircraft, you would not want a nuke in the bomb bay of a Lancaster, even during takeoffs in calm winds.



Why is that?


----------



## looney (Sep 27, 2010)

I would vote in favor of the C-47 or Harvard/Texan or somethin. It got used as is, without any big modifications


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 27, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Why is that?



Taildraggers, especially multi-engine are inherently more difficult to operate on the ground. Although the Lancaster could have easily carried a nuke, the risk of a mishap is greater just by its configuration which is based on 1930s design standards.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 27, 2010)

The B-29 and its atomic bombload made the USA a superpower.

The entire German army couldnt destroy Moscow...but one airplane one bomb....can.

How much does that capability cost? To be invincible? To scare the living poop out of your enemy?

Its a big old stick and its better to be the hammer than the nail.

Whatever the cost...it was worth every penny.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 27, 2010)

The Basket said:


> The B-29 and its atomic bombload made the USA a superpower.
> 
> The entire German army couldnt destroy Moscow...but one airplane one bomb....can.
> 
> ...



Good points, and considering in the post war years it scared the Soviet Union so much they copied the B-29!


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 27, 2010)

The Basket said:


> The B-29 and its atomic bombload made the USA a superpower.
> 
> The entire German army couldnt destroy Moscow...but one airplane one bomb....can.
> 
> ...




Well living within blast distance of Fylingdales I feel more like a nail than a hammer, unfortunately it scared most potential enemies so much they got their own.


PS Napoleon burned moscow on horseback lol


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 27, 2010)

Shortround6;

The main buildings that were built for the B29:

The Marietta plant is still in use by Lockheed Martin
The Omaha plant is used by the USAF as a hanger at the old SAC base.
The Renton Washington plant was finally gotten rid of this month.
The Wichita plant is still in use.

The engine plant that was built in NJ, I think was eventually scrapped and torn down. I think I read somewhere were it was torn down in the 70's.


----------



## renrich (Sep 27, 2010)

The Lancaster could carry a nuke but did not have the altitude capability, speed or range to deliver the bomb. The B29 and the nukes saved many lives both Japanese and Allied in WW2 and later probably also.


----------



## looney (Sep 28, 2010)

A weapon that saves live is BS. No matter what a weapon is designed to kill people. 
If amerika wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered dec 8 1941.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 28, 2010)

".... If amerika wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered dec 8 1941."

Pardon ... 

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2010)

looney said:


> A weapon that saves live is BS. No matter what a weapon is designed to kill people.
> If amerika wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered dec 8 1941.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2010)

looney said:


> A weapon that saves live is BS. No matter what a weapon is designed to kill people.
> If amerika wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered dec 8 1941.



If AMERICA surrendered in 1941 it would be spelled AMERIKA. You are an idiot. I do hope you limit your posts here because you're bleeding off brain cells with every stroke on the keyboard.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 28, 2010)

looney said:


> A weapon that saves live is BS. No matter what a weapon is designed to kill people.
> If amerika wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered dec 8 1941.





TO


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 28, 2010)

looney said:


> If America wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered Dec 8 1941


At least I don't have to spend any more time trying to figure out your handle...


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> that might depend on how the accounting was done.
> 
> For instance the Chrysler corp. built a brand new factory just to build the R-3350 engines that had 82 acres under the roof. It was the only engine factory that took in raw materials at one end and put out finished engines at the other end. A redesign of the the factory structure saved enough steel to build 14 destroyers over the original building plans. Over 9,300 machine tools were needed to equip this factory.
> 
> ...




All valid points but I think you could say the same for the nuclear programme in terms of their future use. Both programmes were costly it is fair to say.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If AMERICA surrendered in 1941 it would be spelled AMERIKA. You are an idiot. I do hope you limit your posts here because you're bleeding off brain cells with every stroke on the keyboard.



Eh, Joe, he's Dutch and we dutch do spell it like "AMERIKA"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Eh, Joe, he's Dutch and we dutch do spell it like "AMERIKA"


So do the Germans, LOL! or we could have spelled it (名) アメリカ合衆国; 北米; 南米; アメリカ大陸


----------



## Marcel (Sep 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So do the Germans, LOL! or we could have spelled it (名) アメリカ合衆国; 北米; 南米; アメリカ大陸



Looks pretty  Those Japanese characters are much more beautiful than Latin ones. And a rising sun looks good with the stars and the stripes. You'll have to let you invade by Morocco, then you'll have the moon on you flag as well. A sure winner


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Taildraggers, especially multi-engine are inherently more difficult to operate on the ground. Although the Lancaster could have easily carried a nuke, the risk of a mishap is greater just by its configuration which is based on 1930s design standards.




I am not saying the Lancaster was in any way comparable to a B 29 they are different generations although I think it was considered for dropping the bomb.

Just considering a few points

The Nuclear bombs were armed after take off in case of a mishap on the ground. Though personally I wouldnt like to be on any piston engined plane with a nuclear bomb. I dont think at that time any were 100% safe.
The range from Okinawa (where bockscar landed) to Tokyo is less than 1000 miles.
All defensive armament apart from the tail guns was removed from the "silverplate" B29s meaning that your enemy must be defenceless.
Many of the B 29s big raids were made at night at low level dropping mainly incendiaries. Whereas the B29 could fly at high altitude it didnt have an escort at that altitude, if used in europe a few high altitude interceptors would have devastated them, until of course the LW was beaten and then you dont need an A bomb.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I am not saying the Lancaster was in any way comparable to a B 29 they are different generations although I think it was considered for dropping the bomb.


Actually it was considered early in the Manhattan project

Just considering a few points


tail end charlie said:


> The Nuclear bombs were armed after take off in case of a mishap on the ground. Though personally I wouldnt like to be on any piston engined plane with a nuclear bomb. I dont think at that time any were 100% safe.
> The range from Okinawa (where bockscar landed) to Tokyo is less than 1000 miles.
> All defensive armament apart from the tail guns was removed from the "silverplate" B29s meaning that your enemy must be defenceless.
> Many of the B 29s big raids were made at night at low level dropping mainly incendiaries. Whereas the B29 could fly at high altitude it didnt have an escort at that altitude, if used in europe a few high altitude interceptors would have devastated them, until of course the LW was beaten and then you dont need an A bomb.


You still run the risk of having an aircraft that can be inherently unstable due to its design configuration carrying the most important weapon of the the war. Would you want to risk that?


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually it was considered early in the Manhattan project
> 
> Just considering a few points
> 
> You still run the risk of having an aircraft that can be inherently unstable due to its design configuration carrying the most important weapon of the the war. Would you want to risk that?




Not at all but then I wouldn't take off with a nuclear bomb with a faulty fuel system like Bockscar did. I would say by todays standards the engine reliability record of the B 29 made it a risk too, but there was a war on.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Not at all but then I wouldn't take off with a nuclear bomb with a faulty fuel system like Bockscar did. I would say by todays standards the engine reliability record of the B 29 made it a risk too, but there was a war on.


Was was "faulty" about Bockscar's fuel system specifically? And I can tell you that depite the problems with the 3350, by August 1945 the MC rate of the B-29 was well into 90%. LeMay would not have had it any other way.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Was was "faulty" about Bockscar's fuel system specifically? And I can tell you that depite the problems with the 3350, by August 1945 the MC rate of the B-29 was well into 90%. LeMay would not have had it any other way.




Something about a fuel transfer pump meant that a 600 gal tank could not be used which was known before take off
Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered: The Story of Nagasaki
the article in wiki alludes to the same without being specific.

quote
A typhoon was threatening Iwo Jima, the mission rendezvous point. Yakushima, off the Kyushu coast, became the new rendezvous point and four B-29's were deployed as rescue planes in case crews needed to ditch over water.

Just before takeoff from Tinian, flight engineer Master Sergeant John D. Kuharek discovered that one of the fuel pumps was not operating, effectively cutting Bock's Car's fuel supply by 640 gallons. This could jeopardize a safe return and under other circumstances would have meant canceling the mission. But, to convince the Japanese that Hiroshima was not a one-time occurrence, it was decided to proceed.
unquote


I am sorry I dont know what "MC" means, I presume it is to do with serviceability/availability ?
Whatever it is is 90% satisfactory for a nuclear bomb?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Something about a fuel transfer pump meant that a 600 gal tank could not be used which was known before take off
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered: The Story of Nagasaki
> the article in wiki alludes to the same without being specific.


Hear-say. I see no historical value in this. the aircraft functioned as advertised and completed its mission. End of story.


tail end charlie said:


> quote
> A typhoon was threatening Iwo Jima, the mission rendezvous point. Yakushima, off the Kyushu coast, became the new rendezvous point and four B-29's were deployed as rescue planes in case crews needed to ditch over water.
> 
> Just before takeoff from Tinian, flight engineer Master Sergeant John D. Kuharek discovered that one of the fuel pumps was not operating, effectively cutting Bock's Car's fuel supply by 640 gallons. This could jeopardize a safe return and under other circumstances would have meant canceling the mission. But, to convince the Japanese that Hiroshima was not a one-time occurrence, it was decided to proceed.
> unquote


 your point????



tail end charlie said:


> I am sorry I dont know what "MC" means, I presume it is to do with serviceability/availability ?
> Whatever it is is 90% satisfactory for a nuclear bomb?


"MISSION CAPABLE" That means you have 90% of your aircraft ready to complete their mission. They can have some equipment not functioning but still can fly their mission. I believe Silver plate aircraft had to be 100% MC at any given time.


----------



## looney (Sep 29, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If AMERICA surrendered in 1941 it would be spelled AMERIKA. You are an idiot. I do hope you limit your posts here because you're bleeding off brain cells with every stroke on the keyboard.



I'm not commenting on your intelligence neither, I misspelled 1 letter which in my language can be interchanged in several words. I'm not the very best inforeign languages, heck not even in my native language. 
I know that if America (I double checked now) didn't enter war whith Germany, when Germany declared it on America (gees again) I would most like be speaking Russian as a second language by now. And Japan would be probably be a bigger country by now. 
However the notion that weapons save lives is incorrect, the sole purpose of a weapon is to kill people. Granted preferably the enemy. Buth a death is a death, I believe both lives deserve the life. The amount of deaths in America should deduce that. 

The fastest way to end a war .... thingy is a quote from George Orwell. He also said that: War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.

George Orwell Quotes
George Orwell quotes

P.s. tnx all who did not comment on the stupidity following my less nuanced previous post. If I offended anyone I apologise.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 29, 2010)

looney said:


> However the notion that weapons save lives is incorrect, the sole purpose of a weapon is to kill people. Granted preferably the enemy. Buth a death is a death, I believe both lives deserve the life. The amount of deaths in America should deduce that.



Hoi Looney,

Strictly speaking, you're correct, but in a bigger view you are not and the view is a little naive imho (no offence meant). Not continuing the war would have enabled Japan to expand the war further, resulting in more casualties, thus just stopping the war like you propose would not have ended the killing. In the view of the American (and I agree), they had to defeat the Japanese so they could not wage any more war. An invasion would have meant that millions of Japanese and Americans were going to die, so the 100,000 was just a little in comparison. This is of course a terrible comparison but in an academic way true. By killing a 100,000, they saved the lives of the millions that were going to die in the invasion.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 29, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hear-say. I see no historical value in this. the aircraft functioned as advertised and completed its mission. End of story.
> 
> *The aircraft did not complete its mission because it flew to Okinawa due to shortage of fuel, its mission was to drop the bomb only if the target was clearly visible. The bomb was dropped so according to the mission the target must have been visible but it missed it by several kilometers in daylight, on diverting to Okinawa it had only about 60 gallons of fuel left which it wouldnt have carrying the bomb. As for historical value are you saying it is untrue or doesn't matter?*
> 
> ...



See above in bold


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 29, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Hoi Looney,
> 
> Strictly speaking, you're correct, but in a bigger view you are not and the view is a little naive imho (no offence meant). Not continuing the war would have enabled Japan to expand the war further, resulting in more casualties, thus just stopping the war like you propose would not have ended the killing. In the view of the American (and I agree), they had to defeat the Japanese so they could not wage any more war. An invasion would have meant that millions of Japanese and Americans were going to die, so the 100,000 was just a little in comparison. This is of course a terrible comparison but in an academic way true. By killing a 100,000, they saved the lives of the millions that were going to die in the invasion.



Marcel this is in my opinion a revisionist view, there was no thought in American planning about saving any Japanese lives, only American ones. The Americans planned to keep dropping atomic bombs until the Japanese surrendered reardless of how many millions of lives that cost. In 1944 an opinion poll in the US gave 14% of American citizens favouring the complete extermination of the Japanese people.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 29, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Marcel this is in my opinion a revisionist view, there was no thought in American planning about saving any Japanese lives, only American ones. The Americans planned to keep dropping atomic bombs until the Japanese surrendered reardless of how many millions of lives that cost. In 1944 an opinion poll in the US gave 14% of American citizens favouring the complete extermination of the Japanese people.



Of course, but saving the Japanese was a nice side-effect. I'm not saying that the US did this for humanitarian reasons, but fact remains that the dropping of the bomb actually did save lives in an indirect manner.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 29, 2010)

Marcel said:


> Of course, but saving the Japanese was a nice side-effect. I'm not saying that the US did this for humanitarian reasons, but fact remains that the dropping of the bomb actually did save lives in an indirect manner.



If they were concerned about saving lives they would not have dropped the first on a city. This is of little relevance today but it can lead to the notion that dropping nuclear weapons is a life saver forgetting how powerful they are and how many are in storage. I agree the bombs did shorten the war and so saved lives but it is a calculation made in hindsight, fortunately hirohito wasnt as mad as his generals.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2010)

looney said:


> War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.


And is the price for peace worth slavery or the giving up basic civil rights? You can ask that to some of our members who lived behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War years or to some of the Chinese victimized by the Japanese of that era.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hear-say. I see no historical value in this. the aircraft functioned as advertised and completed its mission. End of story.
> 
> *The aircraft did not complete its mission because it flew to Okinawa due to shortage of fuel, its mission was to drop the bomb only if the target was clearly visible. The bomb was dropped so according to the mission the target must have been visible but it missed it by several kilometers in daylight, on diverting to Okinawa it had only about 60 gallons of fuel left which it wouldnt have carrying the bomb. As for historical value are you saying it is untrue or doesn't matter?*
> 
> ...





tail end charlie said:


> See above in bold



*Please don't cut and paste a quote, it makes it difficult to answer.*



tail end charlie said:


> *The aircraft did not complete its mission because it flew to Okinawa due to shortage of fuel, its mission was to drop the bomb only if the target was clearly visible. The bomb was dropped so according to the mission the target must have been visible but it missed it by several kilometers in daylight, on diverting to Okinawa it had only about 60 gallons of fuel left which it wouldnt have carrying the bomb. As for historical value are you saying it is untrue or doesn't matter?*



I'm saying its irrelevant in comparing the B-29 and Lancaster as a nuclear bomb carrying platform. Bottom line, the mission was completed and the crew returned to "a" base safely. The fact that one component failed during this mission doesn't give argument that a B-29 carrying a nuke was just as risky as a Lancaster doing the same thing.


tail end charlie said:


> *As I said the mission as stated wasnt completed due to a faulty fuel pump. This discussion started from a tail dragging lancaster being risky with a nuclear bomb. My point was that a plane with a fuel tank inoperative carrying a nuclear bomb is also risky. The fact that the plane made it back doesnt mean my point is invalid. Risks are taken in war.*


The bomb was dropped and the aircraft returned to base, although it had to divert because of a mechanical proplem the mission WAS completed. Risks are taken in war but you try to mitigate risks and utilizing an aircraft with a natural configuration that can present a risk is not a good idea. After the Lincoln, how many tail dragger bomber aircraft were produced?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 29, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Marcel this is in my opinion a revisionist view, there was no thought in American planning about saving any Japanese lives, only American ones.



And every American life that was saved by dropping them makes the bomb worth it in my opinion.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 29, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And every American live that was saved by dropping them makes the bomb worth it in my opinion.



I agree completely, if the bomb was available in 1944 the British would have dropped it on Germany in a heartbeat. I dont understand the present day hand wringing about Dresden, which was a deadly as Hiroshima or Nagasaki depending on the estimates you believe. However no one ever says that Dresden was bombed to save German lives. 

At the end of the war there were 5000 B29s on order no one was thinking of saving Japanese lives. The nuclear bomb may well have saved millions of Japanese lives but it was only the allied lives that were considered. My father was a Pacific veteran and believed they should have dropped more.


----------



## renrich (Sep 29, 2010)

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was worth the human loss if it saved any American lives. I feel sure that some American leaders at least gave thought to the fact it would save Japanese lives also. It was discussed by the Americans to do a demonstration drop instead of on the cities but that idea was discarded because it was thought it would not cause Japan to surrender unconditionally. There were many Japanese leaders who wanted to fight on in spite of H and N. Another reason to drop the bombs was to forestall Soviet designs in the Far East.

To me, it is silly to argue that saving lives by surrendering to aggression is an intelligent choice. Some things are absolutely worth the cost of death. Many Chinese civilians as well as soldiers were murdered by the Japanese after the Chinese Army either surrendered or retreated. The successes of German Arms gave Hitler a free hand with his plans to exterminate what he perceived to be enemies of the Reich. Closer to my home the sacrifises of the several hundreds of Texan revolutionaries at the Alamo and at Goliad(where after surrendering, the Texans were murdered) and the several thousand US Military who lost their lives later in 1846-48 in the Mexican War led to the completion of Manifest Destiny and the extension of the United States to the Pacific. How many lives were ultimately saved in the new area claimed by the US who did not have to live under the capricious tyranny of Mexico? And how many lives were saved in WW2 because of the natural resources that were available in what became the states of New Mexico, Arizona and California, not to mention Texas?


----------



## renrich (Sep 29, 2010)

It would have been extremely hazardous if not impossible for a Lanc to drop the A bombs because it's slow speed and poor altitude capabilities would have probably resulted in the sacrifise of the crew and bomber. In other words, it would have been har pressed to get out of the way of the bomb blast.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 7, 2010)

Aggie08 said:


> I know i already posted this same thing a month or two ago, but has this been figured out yet?



Personally, I think its a tie for first (for fighters anyways).. the Bf/Me 109 and the P-40 WarHawk.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 7, 2010)

As much tempted to jump on the A-bomb discussion ... 



P-40K-5 said:


> Personally, I think its a tie for first (for fighters anyways).. the Bf/Me 109 and the P-40 WarHawk.


P-40??

It is your favourite aircraft but I wonder why exactly it would be the best aircraft of WW2 ...
Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

Civettone said:


> As much tempted to jump on the A-bomb discussion ...
> 
> 
> P-40??
> ...



Testosterone...


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 7, 2010)

Civettone said:


> As much tempted to jump on the A-bomb discussion ...
> 
> 
> P-40??
> ...



the P-40 is my favorite for sure.. but has little to do with my statement.

it was USAAF's primary fighter in North Africa, CBI, and PTO. where it
achieved an excellent kill ratio in all three theaters. Northern Europe
was mostly High alltitude where the P-40 was not at its best. if it
wasn't for the P-40 in the first 3 years of the war, it would have
been a much more LW dominated skys. China would have been
lost, and most likely Burma and parts of India. New Zeland (air
anyways), would have been lost too.

it was proven that the P-40 could outgun, outdive, outrun, out roll,
and outturn (mind you, only at higher air speeds turns) the infamouse 
"zero". the P-40 also had the durabillity and armour advantage. It could 
definatly outturn/outroll/ the 109.. its debatable whether or not it could
outgun it. I think between the 6 50cals and the 109's cannon twin 12.7's 
it was a pretty even match. durability and pilot protection was on par with
the P-40 with later variants of the 109.

after studying the P-40 for 25+ years, I'm begining to understand it
a little better.

~Greg


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

Fortunately for those in P40s, the Avro Anson was on the same side.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Fortunately for those in P40s, the Avro Anson was on the same side.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Fortunately for those in P40s, the Avro Anson was on the same side.



trainer.. funny..
thats my opinion anyways. I'm sorry if you don't agree.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> trainer.. funny..
> thats my opinion anyways. I'm sorry if you don't agree.



The P-40 was a great fighter and probably one of the most under rated fighters of WW2. With that said, many of the places where it saw success were to tactics and pilot skill. If you want to ride on its mission accomplishments, you might have somewhat of an argument, but looking at its technical aspects, it was obsolete as a front line air to air fighter by 1942-43.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-40 was a great fighter and probably one of the most under rated fighters of WW2. With that said, many of the places where it saw success were to tactics and pilot skill. If you want to ride on its mission accomplishments, you might have somewhat of an argument, but looking at its technical aspects, it was obsolete as a front line air to air fighter by 1942-43.



by mid to late 43 yes, there where better aircraft. same with the 109. but both were
there in the begining right until the end and a few years more. and both had remarkable
succeses during the war.

~Greg


----------



## Civettone (Oct 7, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> the P-40 is my favorite for sure.. but has little to do with my statement.
> 
> it was USAAF's primary fighter in North Africa, CBI, and PTO. where it
> achieved an excellent kill ratio in all three theaters.


Excellent? Compared to what? 


> Northern Europe
> was mostly High alltitude where the P-40 was not at its best.


iI always hear that statement but I wonder what the truth is behind it. Most fights that I have read about are low and medium altitude. Only the B-17 and escort fighters flew at high altitude.



> f it wasn't for the P-40 in the first 3 years of the war, it would have been a much more LW dominated skys.


Take away those hundreds of operational P-40s and for sure it is true what you say. But if it wasn't for the P-40 another fighter would have been produced, probably the P-38 or P-39. Or maybe P-43. I don't see why the P-40 was better than any of them, let alone better than the Spitfire or Bf 109. 


> China would have been
> lost, and most likely Burma and parts of India. New Zeland (air
> anyways), would have been lost too.


New Zealand? NEW ZEALAND????
And how would vast countries like China be lost because of no P-40s. You aren't really saying that the P-40 decided over the fate of China right? 



> it was proven that the P-40 could outgun, outdive, outrun, out roll, and outturn (mind you, only at higher air speeds turns) the infamouse "zero".


Reminds me of the Spitfire first combat with the Zeros. They had all the advantages you mentioned but got a bloody nose from them. 



> the P-40 also had the durabillity and armour advantage. It could definatly outturn/outroll/ the 109.. its debatable whether or not it could outgun it.


It seems most 1939-1941 fighters could outturn the 109. But all of them got beaten by the Bf 109. It's speed and power which matter. 


> I think between the 6 50cals and the 109's cannon twin 12.7's it was a pretty even match. durability and pilot protection was on par with the P-40 with later variants of the 109.


I think the first scientific report on structural durability of allied and German fighters still has to be written. All American fighters were considered stronger and more durable than a Spitfire or Bf 109 but I have some serious doubts about that. I wonder what the truth is behind it. (I can accept it for the carier aircraft though.) 



> after studying the P-40 for 25+ years, I'm begining to understand it a little better.


It's not a matter of studying ONE aircraft, it's a matter of studying other aircraft to understand your aircraft.
I can understand if you would say the P-40 was the best the US had in 1941-1942 - though I prefer the P-39 - but to say it is better than any other fighter aircraft??
Would you be so kind to give some data on the P-40 compared to some other fighters?

Kris


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

Flyboy 

I agree with your point about the C-47 the unsung work horses are just as vital as the combat planes approximately 12,000 ansons were built and many were still flying when the combat planes were scrapped, similarly over 11,000 wellingtons were made, many more than the lancaster.

I suppose today the AWACs and Herculese are the same type of plane but kids dont dream about flying a hercules.


----------



## Glider (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I suppose today the AWACs and Herculese are the same type of plane but kids dont dream about flying a hercules.



My son did, but eyesight let him down


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

Glider said:


> My son did, but eyesight let him down



I always wanted to be a F-4 phantom pilot they used to beat up the North York Moors when I was a kid before the 200ft limit, sometimes it was more like 50ft.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 7, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Excellent? Compared to what?
> iI always hear that statement but I wonder what the truth is behind it. Most fights that I have read about are low and medium altitude. Only the B-17 and escort fighters flew at high altitude.


North Eastern/Russian front. sorry should have been more specific. 



Civettone said:


> Take away those hundreds of operational P-40s and for sure it is true what you say. But if it wasn't for the P-40 another fighter would have been produced, probably the P-38 or P-39. Or maybe P-43. I don't see why the P-40 was better than any of them, let alone better than the Spitfire or Bf 109.
> New Zealand? NEW ZEALAND????
> And how would vast countries like China be lost because of no P-40s. You aren't really saying that the P-40 decided over the fate of China right?


the hump. read "God is my co-pilot" 


Civettone said:


> Reminds me of the Spitfire first combat with the Zeros. They had all the advantages you mentioned but got a bloody nose from them.


becouse brit pilots at the time chose to fight the zero's game. "zoom boom" was considered
cowardly and court martial could occur. they later followed the techniques pioneered by
the Flying Tigers.


Civettone said:


> It seems most 1939-1941 fighters could outturn the 109. But all of them got beaten by the Bf 109. It's speed and power which matter.
> I think the first scientific report on structural durability of allied and German fighters still has to be written. All American fighters were considered stronger and more durable than a Spitfire or Bf 109 but I have some serious doubts about that. I wonder what the truth is behind it. (I can accept it for the carier aircraft though.)


think: North Africa. the P-40's main advasary was Bf 109F/G's. they got a shalacking. yes I
know 1 German ace said P-40 were liking picking grapes. pitty those other german aces
where the ones who got picked.


Civettone said:


> It's not a matter of studying ONE aircraft, it's a matter of studying other aircraft to understand your aircraft.
> I can understand if you would say the P-40 was the best the US had in 1941-1942 - though I prefer the P-39 - but to say it is better than any other fighter aircraft??
> Would you be so kind to give some data on the P-40 compared to some other fighters?
> 
> Kris


actually best from 1940-43 1/2. and the question was BEST, not BETTER. the P-40
had a lot of little things it was very good at making it a very effective fighter. kinda
trumps a fighter with the best this or that, but some major flaws. ie: the zero. hard to
find a flaw with most 109's cept' for the main gear arrangement I suspose. P-40's
was climb rate.. obviously. as for data, I'm writing a book. you can see it in there.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

P-40K-5

It makes me wonder why those fools in procurement bothered with the Thunderbolt hellcat corsair tempest and spitfire


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Flyboy
> 
> I agree with your point about the C-47 the unsung work horses are just as vital as the combat planes approximately 12,000 ansons were built and many were still flying when the combat planes were scrapped, similarly over 11,000 wellingtons were made, many more than the lancaster.
> 
> I suppose today the AWACs and Herculese are the same type of plane but kids dont dream about flying a hercules.



Actually the C-130 is slowly closing in however I don't believe it will ever reach the C-47's greatness as it never really influenced civilian aviation.

Every kid want to be a fighter pilot but it can be a rough life. I know many C-130 drivers who had a pretty charmed career without the danger and stress of participating in combat.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> P-40K-5
> 
> It makes me wonder why those fools in procurement bothered with the Thunderbolt hellcat corsair tempest and spitfire



contracts, contracts, and yes.. contracts. the P-40 could have easily been retrofitted with a
1800hp Aliison V-1710 supercharged and turbocharged engine. but the USAAF put the
Kybosh on that. Curtiss did build a few anyways. the P-40J I believe. its speed and ROC was
well, remarkable. thunderbolt came late, ditto corsair, which was designed for a specific roll.
I really don't care about the Spits. if the Germans finished what they started by destroying
all the british radar sites. the Spit would have been moot.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually the C-130 is slowly closing in however I don't believe it will ever reach the C-47's greatness as it never really influenced civilian aviation.
> 
> Every kid want to be a fighter pilot but it can be a rough life. I know many C-130 drivers who had a pretty charmed career without the danger and stress of participating in combat.



I applied to the RAF when I was 16, they told me to get a degree and then apply, fair enough pilots need huge knowledge but after getting a degree you then go through a selection process. I dont know how many the RAF take on now year on year but I think there is more chance of having a hit record


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> contracts, contracts, and yes.. contracts. the P-40 could have easily been retrofitted with a
> 1800hp Aliison V-1710 supercharged and turbocharged engine. but the USAAF put the
> Kybosh on that. Curtiss did build a few anyways. the P-40J I believe. its speed and ROC was
> well, remarkable. thunderbolt came late, ditto corsair, which was designed for a specific roll.
> ...



Sorry, but you weren't doing much more with the P-40 airframe. Curtiss tried with the P-40Q and offered the US government the world and pissed it all away. The P-60? Curtiss wasn't exactly the best defense contractor during WW2 and paid for it in the post war years.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry, but you weren't doing much more with the P-40 airframe. Curtiss tried with the P-40Q and offered the US government the world and pissed it all away. The P-60? Curtiss wasn't exactly the best defense contractor during WW2 and paid for it in the post war years.



yep. like I said, contracts. they fiddled a bit with the airframes. but felt that the 5 spar wing, amour and amourment, and sustained 9+g capability was a good selling point. North American used (or
mabey "borrowed"?) the curtiss data for the devolopment of there P-51.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> I really don't care about the Spits. if the Germans finished what they started by destroying
> all the british radar sites. the Spit would have been moot.



Err doesnt that mean North Africa would be moot too, you just talked one of your theatres off the board, scrub any talk about N Africa and you only got it there in 1941.

BTW the BoB was won by the hurricane in the main.


Personally I think without the Merlin and PW double wasp we would have been goosed regardless of what airframes were designed


----------



## Civettone (Oct 7, 2010)

But again ... New Zealand would be lost ??????


Kris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 7, 2010)

But quite a looker that XP-40Q. Although it was inferior to the P-47 and P-51 it seems that it was good enough to continue production at the end of 1944...






Kris


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Err doesnt that mean North Africa would be moot too, you just talked one of your theatres off the board, scrub any talk about N Africa and you only got it there in 1941.
> 
> BTW the BoB was won by the hurricane in the main.
> 
> ...



and what was 112 and other British squads using? P-40's. Spits flew in joint operations with
the USAAF. flying top cover. whilst P-40's did the escorts. when the P-40's tangled with
109's, there were very little E/A's left when the spits got there.
looks to me that N.Africa is on the board. read: Palm Sunday Massacre


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> North American used (or
> mabey "borrowed"?) the curtiss data for the devolopment of there P-51.



Proof???


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 7, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> looks to me that N.Africa is on the board.



If you disregard the Battle of Britain which the P40 wasnt available for and couldnt take part in anyway then North Africa doesnt exist as a theatre of operations, unless the USA attempts a landing in Africa direct from the USA.

The P40 looks like an early Mustang because they both have an allison engine the wings which were the secret of the mustang were completely different. Put a merlin in a P 40 and you still cant fly to Berlin.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 8, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> If you disregard the Battle of Britain which the P40 wasnt available for and couldnt take part in anyway then North Africa doesnt exist as a theatre of operations, unless the USA attempts a landing in Africa direct from the USA.


ok, what? the US would have went to N.Africa (MTO) regardless of whether or not the British were thier. as far as P-40 use during the BoB, look up 403 squadron. hafta find it in my notes to confirm.



tail end charlie said:


> The P40 looks like an early Mustang because they both have an allison engine the wings which were the secret of the mustang were completely different. Put a merlin in a P 40 and you still cant fly to Berlin.


Actually, its the early P-51's that looked like P-40's. didn't say the P-51 was a dirct copy. but used
Curtiss Data for it's development. Merlins did NOT perform any better in the P-40. but Merlins were 
very tempermantal, and hard to service when used in the P-40.

Proof? hmmm wait for the book.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2010)

Well, after following this thread for the last few pages, I still don't see how anyone can even think of the P-40 as the "Best World War II Aircraft".

Why? Well simply there were better aircraft out there. If we are going to talk fighters there was the Spitfire, P-51, Bf 109, Fw 190 just to name a few. I also question the fact that it made a serious contribution to the actually defeating the Luftwaffe in the overall scheme of things. It was the P-51 that took the fight to the Germans. The P-40 simply could not have kept up at the altitudes that were needed, nor did it have the range to do so. Not trying to diminish the P-40 as it was a great aircraft, but it was outclassed and outdated. I agree with Joe that it was underrated however. 

My vote for best still goes with the C-47. Absolutely amazing aircraft that made a great contribution to the war effort and is still being used around the world today.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 8, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> ok, what? the US would have went to N.Africa (MTO) regardless of whether or not the British were thier. as far as P-40 use during the BoB, look up 403 squadron. hafta find it in my notes to confirm.
> 
> 
> Actually, its the early P-51's that looked like P-40's. didn't say the P-51 was a dirct copy. but used
> ...


The US couldnt go to N Africa until the US entered the war by which time it would be game over.

from wiki
RAF Spitfires used in the theater operated at heights around 30,000 ft (9,100 m), while the Allison engine, with its single-stage, low altitude rated supercharger, worked best at 15,000 ft (4,600 m) or lower. When the Tomahawk was used by Allied units based in the UK from August 1941, this limitation relegated the Tomahawk to low-level reconnaissance and only one squadron, No. 414 Squadron RCAF was used in the fighter role. Subsequently, the British Air Ministry deemed the P-40 completely unsuitable for the theater. P-40 squadrons from mid-1942 re-equipped with aircraft such as Mustangs.
unquote

The P-40 has a chin radiator, round tail and appears to have more dihedral. It has the same passing resemblance to a P51 as it does to any monoplane, the fact that it was replaced by mustangs says it all. 
The Avro Anson had already earned its fearsome reputation for downing Bf109s long before the P40 put its head above the parapet.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 8, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My vote for best still goes with the C-47. Absolutely amazing aircraft that made a great contribution to the war effort and is still being used around the world today.




Yeh OK the C47 was not bad, but it didnt strike fear in the hearts of the LW like an Avro Anson.


I am laughing like a drain even typing that BS


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Yeh OK the C47 was not bad, but it didnt strike fear in the hearts of the LW like an Avro Anson.
> 
> 
> I am laughing like a drain even typing that BS





There is more to winning a war than a slinging bullets.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 8, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> the fact that it was replaced by mustangs says it all



how could the P-40 be replaced when it was used and produced till the end of the war?
near the very end it was used mainly for ground attack, which it did very well since the
begining.. hence its "B-40" nickname.

the Bf/Me 109F/G's on paper was a superior aircraft. yet the P-40 held its own against
them very well. even shot down quite a few German aces flying the F/G's. 

funny thing is, even if you take the lowest P-40 kill ratio, its still about 3:1 in favor of the 
P-40. and thats air to air.. not including ground kills.

I dunno why every time the P-40 is vindicated in some small way, people have to
jump all over it in a bad way. oh well, I can see this is going to turn into a train-wreck
fast so I'll return to base and go have a beer.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 8, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There is more to winning a war than a slinging bullets.



The big advantage of the anson was it had space for Jesus in the co pilots seat and all his disciples behind, you sure need it trying to take out a Bf109 with a single .303 in a twin engined transport sporting a total of 700 Bhp


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 8, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> how could the P-40 be replaced when it was used and produced till the end of the war?



In the text I quoted the British Air Ministry said the P40 was unsuitable and it was replaced by Mustangs (and others) please read it after enjoying a beer.

The Hurricane ended in the ground attack role at which it was a good plane. I would never say it was a great plane although it had many points which were better than a spitfire and made more kills in the BoB.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> I can see this is going to turn into a train-wreck
> fast so I'll return to base and go have a beer.



Why because no one shares the same opinion as you? That's pretty weak.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 8, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why because no one shares the same opinion as you? That's pretty weak.



He just has a nark on because I got the Anson first and he has to settle for second best


----------



## Civettone (Oct 8, 2010)

I thought most P-40s served on the home front by 1944. More were flown by allied countries. 

About the 3:1 ratio ... this includes fights with bombers and transport aircraft. Right?

The P-40 was a good fighter in the horizontal but bad in the vertical. It's the latter which I consider of superior importance. 
Kris


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 8, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Although it was inferior to the P-47 and P-51 it seems that it was good enough to continue production at the end of 1944...


It wasn't
by 1942 the P-40 was indeed obsolete. The US Senate hammered this message home in the form of the Truman Committee. Curtiss-Wright were heavily criticised for poor management policies and inferior products, directly accused of 'riding the gravy train' wrt to contracts awarded off the back of their close relationship with the military, taking $4.7 billion out of a defense (US sp) total of $105 billion for the period 01Jun40 through to 01Mar43.

The Airplane Division attracted the heaviest criticism and two products in particular, the P-40 and the SB2C. Curtiss-Wright AND the Army shared the blame for the continuance of the P-40 when it was so clearly obsolete in the face of more advanced designs like the P-47 and P-51. The Army was condemned for failing to recognise the importance of the newer designs and not ordering them into production sooner. Curtiss-Wright themselves actually attracted some credit for making 'a number of modifications' but the wider view of the report attacked the over-zealous sales pitch, by the company, of the P-40. 

Balancing this, the Truman Committee failed to recognise that P-47 and P-51 production facilities were not yet up to speed in 1943 in order to maintain a constant flow of hardware to the USAAF combat units. This lack of volume had to be compensated with continued P-40 production and this is where the Truman Committee failed to recognise the delicate balance between quality and quantity. The Army's turn to take some credit, they tried to speed up the process in early 1942 by directing the Airplane Division to end P-40 production and take on P-47 production. This did not go well. There were a multitude of QC issues and only around 300 units had been turned out by the end of the same year. The problem was compounded by the need for aircraft for North Africa and Russia and the P-47 lines were abandoned while Curtiss-Wright returned to P-40 production.

The P-40 was not good enough after 1942, it simply had the good fortune to be around in terms of aircraft and tooling to make more aircraft.

Looking at it by the numbers, the last of the line, the P-40N was capable of 340mph at 15,000ft. Its contemporary, the Nakajima Ki-84 approached 400mph 5,000ft overhead of the N. The Bf109K was capable of 450mph at roughly the same height as the Ki-84. All three aircraft were in production in 1944 and while Curtiss-Wright managed to sell 6,000+ P-40Ns, there appears to be little in the way of confirmation as to how many actually saw combat.

If the P-40N was tasked to intercept the latest bomber, the B-29, it would not be able to fly high enough by some considerable margin and even if it could, it would barely be able to catch it, assuming best speed altitude at the same height as the B-29.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 8, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Proof?


Joe
not proof conclusive but certainly compelling, the Curtiss XP-46A; not the clearest picture in the world

*Below:* The Curtiss XP-46A. Was this the rabbit Dutch Kindleberger carefully put into his P-51 hat? _USAF_


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 8, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Joe
> not proof conclusive but certainly compelling, the Curtiss XP-46A; not the clearest picture in the world
> 
> *Below:* The Curtiss XP-46A. Was this the rabbit Dutch Kindleberger carefully put into his P-51 hat? _USAF_




from wiki

The Curtiss XP-46 was a 1940s United States prototype fighter aircraft. It was a development of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation in an effort to introduce the best features found in European fighter aircraft in 1939 (particularly the Bf109 eating Avro Anson) into a fighter aircraft which could succeed the Curtiss P-40, then in production.
unquote I must admit the comments in brackets are mine.


more seriously
Design and development
A United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) specification based upon a Curtiss proposal was the basis for an order placed in September 1939 for the XP-46. The requirements called for a single-engine, low-wing aircraft, slightly smaller than the P-40, and with a wide-track, inward-retracting landing gear. The selected powerplant was an 1,150 hp (858 kW) Allison V-1710-39 V-12 engine. The planned armament included two .50 in (12.7 mm) synchronized machine guns in the forward fuselage and provisions for eight .30 in (7.62 mm) wing-mounted guns. The USAAC later added requirements for self-sealing fuel tanks and 65 lb (29 kg) of armor, the weights of which were to adversely affect performance.

Testing
Two prototype aircraft were delivered, designated XP-46A, with first flight occurring on 15 February 1941. However, the USAAC decided in July 1940 (while the XP-46s were under construction) to replace the XP-46 procurement effort with an upgraded P-40 which would use the planned XP-46 engine. In this manner, a serious disruption of the Curtiss production line would be avoided.

Subsequently, the performance during trials of the XP-46 was found inferior to the upgraded P-40 (designated P-40D).

A myth surrounding the origins of the P-51 Mustang is linked to the North American Aviation (NAA) purchase of test data on the P-40 and P-46. NAA paid $56,000 to Curtiss for technical aerodynamic data on the XP-46 and although there are certain design similarities in the radiator/oil-cooler configuration, the new NA-73X (the company designation for the future P-51) even in preliminary design had already progressed beyond the XP-46 [1]. In addition, after the war, NAA engineers revealed that they had learned of a European study (before the US entry into World War II) which indicated the value of a well-designed embedded radiator, and were eager to apply that knowledge to a new design.


----------



## renrich (Oct 8, 2010)

The arguments being used to define the P40 as WW2s best aircraft actually fit the F4F Wildcat better. Overall, it had much greater impact on the war's outcome than the P40 and it had a better record against the A6M than did the P40. I still would have to vote for the C47.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 8, 2010)

renrich said:


> The arguments being used to define the P40 as WW2s best aircraft actually fit the F4F Wildcat better. Overall, it had much greater impact on the war's outcome than the P40 and it had a better record against the A6M than did the P40.



Wildcat is a very good plane. P-40 had a very good record against the am6 also. but the F4F wasn't in
China/Burma/India, nor North Africa. Imagine if the P-40's were not there in the begining of the
war. I can't. they kept the JAAF in check until re-inforcments arrived.

Now this needs repeating. In N.Africa the P-40's main foe was the Bf/Me 109F/G's on paper, a vastly
superior plane, flown by German aces. Yet the P-40's had a 3:1 k/r against them IF you believe the
lowest numbers. alot has to do with pilots flying them, and the strengths of the P-40 took
advatages of the 109's weaknesses.. smartly. specifically when it came to turning and rolls, which
the P-40 outclassed the 109.

so by best.. that was just my opinion. it held the lines for almost 3 years. and flown right to the
end. had a very impressive record against some of the best machines out there. considering
the P-40 was obselete according to some at the beggining of the war, thats a hell of an
accomplishment. obselete? I think not. thanks for reading

~Greg


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 8, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> In N.Africa the P-40's main foe was the Bf/Me 109F/G's on paper, a vastly
> superior plane, flown by German aces.



The P-40 was just a poor mans Avro Anson

There at the start, there at the finish bagged a few Bf109s and a couple of 1000 bomber raids then carried on into peace time is there anything the Anson couldnt do?


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 8, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> P-40 had a very good record against the A6M...
> 
> 
> but the F4F wasn't in China/Burma/India


It did?


Neither was the A6M at least, not in the same part of the CBI as the P-40, at the same time. By the time 'our' war had started, the A6M had been largely withdrawn from China; the principal opponents faced by the AVG were the Ki-27 (Nate) and the Ki-43 (Oscar).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Joe
> not proof conclusive but certainly compelling, the Curtiss XP-46A; not the clearest picture in the world
> 
> *Below:* The Curtiss XP-46A. Was this the rabbit Dutch Kindleberger carefully put into his P-51 hat? _USAF_



Maybe or it showed incompetence on Curtiss' part.


----------



## Glider (Oct 9, 2010)

Re the performance of the P40 against the Me 109 there was a thread on this and the following are some notes I made at the time. All these details are as published in Fighters Over Tunisia.

Some time ago I was able to have a look at Fighters over Tunisia in the Library and I couldn't find a US Pilot who didn't think that the P40 was totally outclassed by the Me 109.

*General Quotes*
Some quotes I jotted down 
a) Page 392 discussing P40 vs Spit V Wing Commander Benham
During mock dogfights I was able to outfly 3 x P40 in a single Spitfire VB

b) Page 403 John Bradley 33rd Fighter Group on P40F
He describes the plane as being obsolete for what it was asked to do (as a fighter)

c) Page 407 Brig Harrison Thyng CO 309 Squadron 31st Fighter group
Preferred the Spitfire to all other Allied fighters and considered the P39/P40 to be no match for the 109 F/G or the 190

d) Page 413 Capt Ron Whittaker 57th Fighter Group P40F
Considered the P40 to be outclassed by the German Fighters.

There was a common theme that the Spit V was considered to be better than the US fighters and the Spit IX to be at least as good as the 190 and better than the Me109.
The only exception being that the P38 was better for range which shouldn't be a suprise.
I also tracked all the combats for two units RAF 112 squadron and 68th Fighter Squadron of the 33rd Fighter Group. These units were chosen because they were the most experienced units I could identify.

*RAF 112 Squadron*
The following are the list of combats that RAF 112 squadron had in Tunisia which should give a fair indication as to how well the P40 did against the Me109. All details from Fighters Over Tunisia

23rd Dec 2 x P40 lost 2 x P40 belly landed 1 x Me109 claimed
11th Jan 1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 belly landed
5th Feb 1 x P40 l1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 belly landed, 1 x Me109 claimed
27th Feb 1 x P40 lost. 1 x Me109 Probable claimed
7th March 1 x P40 Badly damaged
8th March 7 x P40 lost (1 pilot returned) 2 x Me109 1 x Ju87 claimed
22nd March 1 x Me109 as a probable claimed
19 April 1 x Me109 claimed
20 April 1 x Ju88 claimed

*68th Fighter Squadron of 33rd Fighter Group*
12th Dec - 1 German claimed no type given
19th Dec - 1 x He111 claimed
21st Jan - 1 x P40 lost
3rd Jan - 2 x P40 lost
4th Jan - 3 x P40 lost 1 x P40 damaged
8th Jan - 1 x Me109 and 2 x Fw190 claimed (1 German actually lost and 1 Damaged), 2 x P40 lost
11th Jan - 1 x P40 lost 1 x Me109 claimed (but no actual losses recorded)
12th Jan - 1 x Ju88 1 x Me109 claimed
13th Jan - 1 x Beaufighter shot down, 2 x Ju88 shot down (note these were seperate incidents)
15th Jan - 1 x P40 lost
17th Jan - 1 x P40 lost
30th Jan - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
24th Mar - 5 x P40 lost 5 x Me109 claimed but only one Me109 (Richard Wolfmier) actually lost
29th Mar - 3 x Me109 claimed plus 3 x Me109 claimed by 60th FS. 4 x Me109 actually lost for 1 x P40 lost from 58th FS
31st Mar - 1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 damaged, 7 x Me109 claimed but none lost
4th Apr - 2 x P40 lost 2 x Me109 claimed but none lost
5th Apr - 1 x P40 lost, 1 x Mc202 and 1 x Me109 claimed
7th Apr - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
10th Apr - 4 x Mc 202 claimed
23rd Apr - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
4th May - 2 x P40 claimed 2 x Me109 claimed but no losses to either side
7th May - 1 x p40 lost to AA fire.


*According to German Records*
Total German Claims 965

Total German Losses
Combat - 182 (*Note *this is all types)
Accident -68
AA fire - 23
own AA fire - 3
Own Fighter - 2
Total 278

Generally speaking there is little here to say that the P40 could hold its own in combat against the Me109 and based on this snapshot even 3 - 1 claim ratios must be considered doubtful


----------



## evangilder (Oct 9, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> so by best.. that was just my opinion. it held the lines for almost 3 years. and flown right to the
> end. had a very impressive record against some of the best machines out there. considering
> the P-40 was obselete according to some at the beggining of the war, thats a hell of an
> accomplishment. obselete? I think not. thanks for reading
> ...



If you are going to apply a standard of holding the line for the duration of the war, the Bf-109 was in service longer, and continued to be in service well into the 1960s if you include the Spanish built units. 

The P-40 was a good airplane, but not a great airplane for it's time. 

Fighters are essential to establish control of the air, which is important, but what about getting food and supplies to the troops, and getting the wounded out? Fighters and bombers are sexy, but when it comes down to it, the transports are the ones that win wars. 

I stick with my original vote, the C-47 Skytrain. Not only that,but I still consider the C-47/DC-3 to be the greatest airplane ever built.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 9, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> from wiki


Wiki's there
if I really can't be bothered to get my lazy ass out of my chair and take a walk over to my bookshelf


Earlier in September 1939, work had begun of a smaller fighter at Curtiss. It had Air Corps designation XP-46 and two examples were built to meet an Air Corps' specification that apparently grew from the desire of Hap Arnold to obtain a lighter, smaller fighter aircraft than those in inventory or under development. Arnold had been impressed by the performance of a French racing plane, the Caudron C-460, flown by Michael Detroyat to decisive victories in both the Greve and Thompson Trophy races at Cleveland in 1936 and had sent Ben Kelsey, his Fighter Projects Officer, to inspect the Caudron.

Kelsey of course, had reported to Arnold that, by the time such a craft was transformed into a useful fighter, it would no longer be as small or as light in weight. It seems apparent however that Arnold never did completely accept the fact that he couldn't have such a machine if only Wright Field and US planemakers would just try a little harder.

The Curtiss XP-46, which obviously had a great deal of P-40 in it, ended up with an empty weight 100lbs heavier than the P-40. It had ten guns, armour plate, self-sealing fuel tanks, Handley-Page wing slats and a top speed of 410mph fitted with the V-1710-39. It first flew on 15Feb41. Just what its performance might have been at altitude with, say, a two-stage Merlin, we'll never know.

Or maybe we do. Here's how Kelsey relates it:

_"Early in 1940, the British Purchasing Commission wanted to buy more P-40s. Well, they had some on order, but the balloon went up and they asked us how many we could build per day. Arnold was at Dayton one day, talking to Gen Echols and Echols told him if we could just hold off building P-40s for a while and not try to build it up, we could rush the P-46 through and substitute the P-46 for the P-40 in the build-up, and then we should have the aircraft that we should have and not the one that was locked into the 1936 procurement which was an aircraft four years old.

Echols and Arnold walked down the hall together. Arnold was impressed and said he would check it out in Washington and let us know.

The next day, or the day after, he called back and said 'We're committing to a training programme with a great many pilots; to a deployment programme that involves the creation and commissioning of new groups, etc'

Arnold never did tell anyone why he made certain decisions and this is all the detail he went into. So, the stage was set, every P-40 we could get out of that plant was already obligated. The Brits wanted as many as they could get. My understanding of it is that Echols made a suggestion to the British saying if they could find a manufacturer that wasn't already bogged down in high-priority stuff, that we would make available all the data we had on the P-46 to help them build a new fighter. This was kind of a secret in our talk in the halls about getting P-46s in place of the P-40, to find some way of getting around the problem.

I don't know how the Brits got hold of Dutch Kindleberger. I know the way it came back to me was that the British found that NAA could do it. Some say that NAA bought P-40 data. I don't know what it was for certain, I never saw it but the rest of the quid pro quo was that three of the very first evaluation aircraft would come to us for that purpose.

Bill Ballhouse, Dutch Kindleberger and Lee Atwood did an absolutely superb job on the P-51 but the wing area, the placement of the underwing radiator and the weight - almost everything except the drag, which they cleaned up and a few other structural details, was like the original P-46. This gave NAA a whole start. They didn't have to make a whole bunch of preliminary design studies. They were able to put in their own match angles and their own desires as to where to cut the parts for production and they were able to determine how much weight went into the armament. They knew what all the equipment specifications were. 

The 120-day wonder makes sense now. You take a 3-view drawing and just refine it to match your own situation. 

Meanwhile, we still wanted the P-46 to replace the P-40. This had nothing to do with the P-51. We were working out our own problems but there were two things, time and money, that killed the P-46.

Now these things don't come out. Everybody who's working on this kind of thing is sure he has all the answers. I don't have all the answers, all I know is the part we had..

Perhaps we should add that one of Mr Kindleberger's oft-repeated axioms was 'You can't pull a rabbit out of a hat unless you carefully put a rabbit into the hat beforehand' Was that a P-46 rabbit you carefully put into the P-51 hat, Mr Kindleberger?"_


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 9, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Wiki's there
> if I really can't be bothered to get my lazy ass out of my chair and take a walk over to my bookshelf
> 
> 
> [/I]



I am not responding to remarks started like this. Have a great weekend.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 9, 2010)

"Was that a P-46 rabbit you carefully put into the P-51 hat, Mr Kindleberger?"

Maybe and maybe not. The P-46 that did 410mph was the second prototype that was rushed through to completion ahead of the first airframe. It had no armor, no self sealing tanks, no guns and perhaps some other things missing. When the first airframe was tested with all the things necessary for combat it proved to be capable of only 355mph. One account claims Curtiss was penalized over 14,000 dollars for failing to meet contract specifications. 
One would think that facing such a loss the Curtiss people would have fiddled with the plane to make sure the engine was performing properly, the finish was as good as possible and what ever other little tweeks they could come up with because part of the penalty was based on so many dollars for each and every MPH the airplane failed to meet it's guaranteed speed by. 

Putting an airplane into your hat that couldn't out run a P-40 using the same engine and pulling out the P-51 seems like there was something extra in the hat.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 9, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Looking at it by the numbers, the last of the line, the P-40N was capable of 340mph at 15,000ft. Its contemporary, the Nakajima Ki-84 approached 400mph 5,000ft overhead of the N. The Bf109K was capable of 450mph at roughly the same height as the Ki-84. All three aircraft were in production in 1944 and while Curtiss-Wright managed to sell 6,000+ P-40Ns, there appears to be little in the way of confirmation as to how many actually saw combat.


At some point in 1943 it was decided that NO new US fighter groups would be issued P-40s for over seas use.

P-40s would be supplied to US allies and would continue to be supplied to advanced training units in the continental US. They may have been used by some groups as initial equipment as they worked up in the US before transferring overseas and being re-equipped.

By the start of 1944 the US was under no illusion that the P-40 was a world class fighter. A useful ground attack plane or fighter bomber perhaps but not a true fighter plane.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 9, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> In N.Africa the P-40's main foe was the Bf/Me 109F/G's on paper, a vastly
> superior plane, flown by German aces. Yet the P-40's had a 3:1 k/r against them IF you believe the
> lowest numbers.


Greg, I took you seriously up to now. But if you have studied this for 25+ years and you come up with this BS ... 

Kris


----------



## renrich (Oct 9, 2010)

I have a really hard time believing that the P40 had a positive kill ratio against BF109s in any theatre in the war. The P40 actually faced the A6M very little. Without the P40, the Allies would have lost all of SE Asia just like they did anyway. Brewsters, Hurricanes, P39s and all the other types would have sufficed to have gotten shot down also. The AVG did some good work against Japanese Army aircraft during the first six months of the war but those were mostly obsolete types.

My numbers show that the P40 in Europe flew 67059 sorties with 553 losses.
Altogether the P40 had 1994 kills in all theatres.
P40 had 661 kills in the PTO
P40 had 741 kills in the CBI
P40 had 592 kills in the Med.

Altogether the F4F had 1436 kills in all theatres
F4F had 1408 kills in the PTO
F4F had 26 kills in the Med.
F4F had 2 kills in the ETO

Based on those figures, I have to believe that the F4F types had a much bigger impact against the Japanese than the P40 and if deployed in any numbers in the ETO or Med it would have done better than the P40.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 9, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> At some point in 1943 it was decided that NO new US fighter groups would be issued P-40s for over seas use.
> 
> P-40s would be supplied to US allies and would continue to be supplied to advanced training units in the continental US. They may have been used by some groups as initial equipment as they worked up in the US before transferring overseas and being re-equipped.
> 
> By the start of 1944 the US was under no illusion that the P-40 was a world class fighter. A useful ground attack plane or fighter bomber perhaps but not a true fighter plane.


Oh absolutely
but it reveals nothing new, the Army if you recall, were instructing Curtiss to cease P-40 production back in 1942 albeit with limited success, what isn't addressed here is why they were still being produced in 1944 in the face of the P-40's acknowledged performance shortfalls.

Just how many of the Ns were going overseas to the Soviet Union in 1944, with Lavochkin and Illyushin production now in full swing? North Africa? A total export figure of 458 to be precise, that's P-40N-1 to P-40N-35 inclusive. 

Continental US training units? 6,000+ Ns? TP-40s hadn't been needed since 1940 but suddenly in 1944 they were needed?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 9, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Continental US training units? 6,000+ Ns? TP-40s hadn't been needed since 1940 but suddenly in 1944 they were needed?



A case may be made that the US should have keep making P-40s until the end of 1942 to make up numbers.

It should have stopped at some point in 1943. While some new aircraft would be needed as trainers after 1940 (students being rather hard on airplanes) to keep making them in 1944 was truly a waste of resources.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 9, 2010)

Coming late to the party but wanna make 2 points used by P-40K-5:

1) RE: "Palm Sunday Massacre" - made against Me 323 Gigants with sparse fighter cover. While the few 109s there were mixed it with the firts flight of RAF fighters, the rest tore into the fat Gigants loaded with fuel. Really don't know how that example can be used to show how the P-40 bested the 109. Don't take a knife to a gunfight.

2) RE: "God is My Co-Pilot" - 'Boom Zoom ' WERE the tactics IIRC that the AVG used against Zeros. One pass and high-tail to base unless unescorted Bettys. That is what I remember from the book. Don't know what other tactics the AVG used that P-40K referenced.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2010)

Njaco said:


> 2) RE: "God is My Co-Pilot" - 'Boom Zoom ' WERE the tactics IIRC that the AVG used against Zeros. One pass and high-tail to base unless unescorted Bettys. That is what I remember from the book. Don't know what other tactics the AVG used that P-40K referenced.



Actually it was aganist Oscars and Nates. There were few if any Zeros in th CBI when the Flying Tigers were at their peak.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 9, 2010)

I've read some units obtained an overall 3-1 ratio flying the P-40, but would be interested in seeing the evidence about it versing the 109.


----------



## renrich (Oct 9, 2010)

The AVG fought as a unit only about six months and mostly against second line Japanese fighters and bombers. I doubt if they ever engaged IJN aircraft which would include A6Ms.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> I've read some units obtained an overall 3-1 ratio flying the P-40, but would be interested in seeing the evidence about it versing the 109.



And this is based on "claims" (JoeB will chime in here soon). I'm sure the actual score is more like 2 to 1 or 1 to 1.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2010)

renrich said:


> The AVG fought as a unit only about six months and mostly against second line Japanese fighters and bombers. I doubt if they ever engaged IJN aircraft which would include A6Ms.



The JAAF were flying Nates and later Oscars. the P-40 outgunned both of them but the Oscar was no slouch being more maneuverable than the Zero.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 9, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And this is based on "claims" (JoeB will chime in here soon). I'm sure the actual score is more like 2 to 1 or 1 to 1.



air to air kills were 3:1 overall. in favor of the P-40.

below is an interesting read.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 9, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> below is an interesting read.



Was it written by Biggles cousin?


----------



## P-40K-5 (Oct 9, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Was it written by Biggles cousin?



nice. Insult the great men and women who served and gave thier lives
in WWII. and who built these aircrafts so that people like you can make
such statements. are proud of yourself now?


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 9, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> below is an interesting read.


Restricted?
Declassified now obviously but a piece of Curtiss-Wright documentation then; that'll be some of what the Truman Committee were referring to when they accused Curtiss-Wright of an over-zealous sales pitch 

You can count on <company x> to tell you <company x's product> is, really, as good as it ever was, even when it isn't any more.

I don't know how old you are, I can't place you but it's a sales pitch, it reminds me of something Buick might put out to clear the old models off the showroom floor before the new range comes in.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 9, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> nice. Insult the great men and women who served and gave thier lives
> in WWII. and who built these aircrafts so that people like you can make
> such statements. are proud of yourself now?



That is a cheap shot, I am not insulting anybody who took part in the conflict which includes a large part of the older males in my family my wifes family and the generation before in WWI. My wifes father died when she was two from chronic bronchitis due to living in a submarine breathing sulphuric acid fumes for 3 years despite having a reserved occupation. My father was on destroyers, one uncle was in bomber command/ROC two were in the army and another was RAF ground crew.

I dont know where you got the document from but it seems like late war publicity, check the dates mentioned with the actual dates. Look at the actual service record of the P-40 with the RAF. It was replaced as soon as was practical. For a pre war design it did very well it was a good plane but there were better, it was better than the Hurricane but in 1942/3 that wasnt saying very much at all. The document you posted reads like Curtiss hype for a plane that was passed its time, what is its title?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2010)

P-40K-5 said:


> air to air kills were 3:1 overall. in favor of the P-40.
> 
> below is an interesting read.





Do you realize you are reading war time propaganda????? Its straight from the flight manual. Please be advised that you're not dealing with a bunch of novices who just learned about warbirds last year. * I don't think you know the difference between "claims" and actual kills confirmed by both sides.*

I suggest you read "Bloody Shambles." That should give you somewhat of an insight as to the real story.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 9, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Do you realize you are reading war time propaganda????? .



I dunno about the Pacific but any plane that could score a 3:1 ratio against the Luftwaffe between 1941-45 would be a legend, in fact the war would be over by 44 probably


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I dunno about the Pacific but any plane that could score a 3:1 ratio against the Luftwaffe between 1941-45 would be a legend, in fact the war would be over by 44 probably



If not 1943....

P-40 - just for the record, I still remain by my statement that the P-40 was one of the most under rated fighters of WW2. With that said, I also recognize its limitations and ACTUAL wartime combat record with verification against axis records. Posting propaganda from the -1 shows either your very naive or lack of knowledge of this subject matter. I hope you're not serious about writing a book unless you already have a fat advance from a publisher (Osprey maybe?) because based on some of your comments here and lack of verifiable sources to back up your claims, you seem to be relying on Wikipedia or the preamble found in model kits for your sources of information.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 9, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If not 1943....
> 
> P-40 - just for the record, I still remain by my statement that the P-40 was one of the most under rated fighters of WW2. With that said, I also recognize its limitations and ACTUAL wartime combat record with verification against axis records.



It seems to me that the P40 was Americas Hurricane. It performed in all sorts of theatres but was outshone by more glamourous aircraft. 

Without the spitfire the BoB could have been won ...eventually ......but without the hurricane the BoB would have been lost. The P 40 like the Hurricane bought time for better planes to take the fight to the adversary. In the Pacific many of the key battles were between carriers or involved carriers so the heroes of the battle were carrier based planes and their pilots.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 10, 2010)

In fighter versus fighter engagements, on a consistent basis, the japanese were shooting down more allied fighters than they were losing themselves. The loss ratios varied greatly, but it was not inconsistent for the allies to lose 5 or 6 fighters for every one Japanese fighter. Total aircraft losses improvfed things a bit, but it was still weighted in favour of the japanese until well into 1943. The turning point in the air war was 1943, not 1942. 

It was not just numbers that worked against the japanese in my opinion. As 1944 wore on they were also losing qualitatively.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 10, 2010)

Thanks Joe. I was at work and couln't correct afte I remembered and posted.

and I was also wrong on the Palm Sunday Massacre - I was actualy refrencing the Holy Thursday Massacre a wek later. Here is Palm Sunday....

The effort to re-supply the bridgehead in Tunisia by the Germans is slowly turning into a diaster. Nearly 100 Ju 52s were loaded with German soldiers to be airlifted to Tunisia in an effort to reinforce Rommel. The transport formation was to be escorted by 16 Italian Macchi C-202s and Bf 109s fighters from JG 53 along with 3 Bf 110s. Near Cape Bon, the formation was attacked by 46 P-40s from the US 9th AF's 57th FG, 12 P-40s from the 324th FS and 12 Spitfires from RAF No. 92 Sqdrn. who were providing top cover for the P-40s. The Allied pilots were guided to the Germans by messages recieved from the German enigma codes. The Junkers transports were caught flying about 100 feet above the Mediterranean in 3 'V' formations. Leaving the Spitfires and a squadron of Warhawks to take on the Messerschmitts and Italians, Capt. James Curl led 3 squadrons of fighters into the German transports. After 10 minutes of battle, over half of the Ju 52s were shot down into the sea or crashed on the beaches of Cape Bon. 51 German transports were shot down along with more than 16 fighters. The Allies lost 6 P-40s and one Spitfire during combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> In the Pacific many of the key battles were between carriers or involved carriers so the heroes of the battle were carrier based planes and their pilots.


Not always true. There were numerous operations where the USAAF in coordination with the US Army and Navy was the main player. Look in to 5th AF operations in the Solomons. Additionally, the P-40 could not have done it alone in that theater because it lacked the range and that's where the P-38 came in.


----------



## renrich (Oct 10, 2010)

Correct FB, and the Nate(KI-27) was a fixed gear monoplane with a Vmax of about 286 mph and two 7.7 MGs. Hardly a first class opponent and on paper not even in the same league with the P40. As you have said, the books by Shores, including "Bloody Shambles" will give one a new perspective about the war in Southeast Asia and the "claims" by allied fighter pilots.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Do you realize you are reading war time propaganda????? Its straight from the flight manual. Please be advised that you're not dealing with a bunch of novices who just learned about warbirds last year. * I don't think you know the difference between "claims" and actual kills confirmed by both sides.*



To me the most telling sentence in that posting was;

"True, no more P-40's are being sent to the war theaters."

start of second paragraph, second column, first page. 
I believe the date on that manual was 1943? 

In the flight manual for transitioning pilots they are saying that it is no more than an advanced trainer if you take away the hoopla. 8)


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 10, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> In the flight manual for transitioning pilots they are saying that it is no more than an advanced trainer if you take away the hoopla. 8)



I am surprised that such a document was actually handed to pilots, it reads like a pathe news soundtrack. I would have thought it should be full of instructions and procedures limits and parameters not a kind of sales pitch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I am surprised that such a document was actually handed to pilots, it reads like a pathe news soundtrack. I would have thought it should be full of instructions and procedures limits and parameters not a kind of sales pitch.



That's only the preamble. Most-1s of the day had similar propaganda in them. The rest of the manual is pretty comprehensive.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's only the preamble. Most-1s of the day had similar propaganda in them. The rest of the manual is pretty comprehensive.



I suppose times were different, when I watch a pathe newsreel its hard sometimes to believe its not a kind of spoof. I suppose it was the same with documents.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And this is based on "claims" (JoeB will chime in here soon). I'm sure the actual score is more like 2 to 1 or 1 to 1.



No it's not, Daniel Ford's book _Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942._ cut through the bs claims and got to the hard facts. The Tigers actually shot down around 115 which would put them above a 3-1 ratio.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> No it's not, Daniel Ford's book _Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942._ cut through the bs claims and got to the hard facts. The Tigers actually shot down around 115 which would put them above a 3-1 ratio.



For the Tigers, not the rest of the P-40 operators, and I believe the AVG "actuals" (the 115 aircraft you mention) includes all types of aircraft. nit just fighter-to-fighter engagments. Their record was still commendable.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 10, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For the Tigers, not the rest of the P-40 operators, and I believe the AVG "actuals" (the 115 aircraft you mention) includes all types of aircraft. nit just fighter-to-fighter engagments. Their record was still commendable.



??? I was replying to your response to my following statement:



vikingBerserker said:


> I've read some units obtained an overall 3-1 ratio flying the P-40, but would be interested in seeing the evidence about it versing the 109.



I did not say anything about all P-40's achevied this, and never said anything about fighter vs fighter


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> ??? I was replying to your response to my following statement:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say anything about all P-40's achevied this, and never said anything about fighter vs fighter



Sorry, my mis-read...


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 10, 2010)

I dont think it is unusual to overestimate anyway almost all forces did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I dont think it is unusual to overestimate anyway almost all forces did.



Very true


----------



## renrich (Oct 11, 2010)

I have not read Ford's book, but will try to get it at the library. Sounds like a good read. After reading Shores and Lundstrom, I have realised that a lot of the info we have gotten about aircraft shootdowns is in error. Unless the records of kills credited by the Allies is cross checked against the Axis records of that particular day and that particular engagement, then there are often kills credited that don't exist.

I think that everyone is familiar with the famous record of the Hellcat in the PTO with around a fifteen to one kill ratio. And then the Corsair record of eleven to one. I suspect that those ratios are based on "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics" published in June of 1946. That publication shows that Navy carrier based F4Fs shot down 190 bombers and 112 fighters in WW2. I am sure fairly sure that that statistic includes Butch O Hare's famous day when he became an ace in one mission by being credited with five Betty bombers. The fly in the buttermilk is that in Lundstrom, his research with Japanese records shows that actually O Hare probably only shot down three Betties although he probably severely damaged others.

If the above paragraph is accurate, then the total numbers of Japanese aircraft destroyed in combat in the PTO by Naval Aviation(which includes the Marines) totaling 2746 bombers and 6535 fighters may be off by 30% to 50%.

I guess we just have to live with the fact that some "facts" are subject to human error and are now unprovable. The Battle of the Alamo has been studied and written about ad nauseum since that day in March of 1836 and we still don't know exactly how many defenders were in the Alamo and how many, if any, were captured and then killed. At least we know who won the war ultimately.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 11, 2010)

So where that leaves Hartmann kameraden: are their 200 300+ claims just that, or real, cross-checked kills?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> So where that leaves Hartmann kameraden: are their 200 300+ claims just that, or real, cross-checked kills?



More than likely everybody's claims are a bit overstated. Hartmann and the "Experten" are probably still dozens upon dozens ahead of everybody else though. You have to look at how long the German's flew though. A Luftwaffe pilot flew until he was either dead, captured or the war was over.


----------



## renrich (Oct 11, 2010)

I agree with Chris. Even if you halve Hartmann's kills that still leaves him with around 150 plus kills which if you correspondingly halve Bong's kills that leaves him with around 22. I read somewhere where Bob Johnson's records were compared to one of the LW aces, Moelders, and if Johnson had stayed in action and had the same rate of success he would have equaled Moelders. Those poor guys in the LW stayed in action so long and were exposed to so many EA, particularly on the Eastern Front, that if they had aptitude and stayed sane and lucky they were going to get so experienced and good that they were bound to have big numbers.


----------



## Alexa (Oct 26, 2010)

A lot of factors go into "best". Ease of production, scope of production, performance and most of all, the more esoteric question of how it did in the role INTENDED FOR IT. Did the C-47 do everything it was intended to do and more? How about the P51 and Spitfire? The B-17 and Lancaster and B-24? They ALL performed up to spec and did what they were supposed to do. They soldiered on, endured and won through. Obviously no German, Italian, French, or Japanese aircraft did these things as well because they LOST. In the end you are left with the C47, Spitfire and Mustang, all of whom won their wars doing their "thing". Now you have to decide one thing only: is the greatest DEFENSIVE fighter better than the greatest WAR WINNING fighter and or are either better than the plane that transported the allies everywhere right up to DDay and beyond and are flying commercial flights even today?

Based on rational criteria of ease of production, scope of production, loss ratios and meeting the original purpose of the design, nothing beats the C47. Unglamorous but if you look up in the sky in 2010, you'll still see one or two flying.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2010)

Alexa said:


> Based on rational criteria of ease of production, scope of production, loss ratios and meeting the original purpose of the design, nothing beats the C47. Unglamorous but if you look up in the sky in 2010, you'll still see one or two flying.



*BINGO!!!!*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2010)

Gotta agree as well. That is why the C-47 gets my vote.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2010)

Reagrding overclaqiming, It doesnt necessarily follow that just because a particular incident can be shown to have not occurred, it doesnt meaqn that the pilots score is necessarily wrong. What it means is that for that action it is wrong. What about all the unreported shoot downs, or the probables that were actuals. To prove if an ace is not an ace, one would have to checks every combat they were involved in, check every aircraft that came into contact with them etc etc. in other words, an impossible exercise. 

Hartmann was a phenomenal pilot, and he shot down a lot of enemy aircraft. thats as far as we can take it at this point....


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 2, 2010)

Alexa said:


> A lot of factors go into "best". Ease of production, scope of production, performance and most of all, the more esoteric question of how it did in the role INTENDED FOR IT. Did the C-47 do everything it was intended to do and more? How about the P51 and Spitfire? The B-17 and Lancaster and B-24? They ALL performed up to spec and did what they were supposed to do. They soldiered on, endured and won through. Obviously no German, Italian, French, or Japanese aircraft did these things as well because they LOST. In the end you are left with the C47, Spitfire and Mustang, all of whom won their wars doing their "thing". Now you have to decide one thing only: is the greatest DEFENSIVE fighter better than the greatest WAR WINNING fighter and or are either better than the plane that transported the allies everywhere right up to DDay and beyond and are flying commercial flights even today?
> 
> Based on rational criteria of ease of production, scope of production, loss ratios and meeting the original purpose of the design, nothing beats the C47. Unglamorous but if you look up in the sky in 2010, you'll still see one or two flying.


 Based on your criteria, the SBDs were the best. What other aircraft at that time could have done what they did at Midway? It would be unfair to compare them to other bomber-fighters, such as the F6F, as the F6F wasn't around at that time. What's the best motor vehicle? Is it the Ford T-Bird? How can one even compare that to the Lamborghini Murcielago? How can one even compare either of those to the Chevy F-10 pickup? The Zeroes were the best fighters in the Pacific, but still, the FM2s, even the earlier F4Fs, with guys like Joe Foss at the stick, downed their share of them. Put the aircraft in its element, with a crack pilot, and every one of these aircraft could do the job, and, indeed, they did. 

Hey, I’m just sayin'...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2010)

VBF-13 said:


> Based on your criteria, the SBDs were the best. What other aircraft at that time could have done what they did at Midway? It would be unfair to compare them to other bomber-fighters, such as the F6F, as the F6F wasn't around at that time. What's the best motor vehicle? Is it the Ford T-Bird? How can one even compare that to the Lamborghini Murcielago? How can one even compare either of those to the Chevy F-10 pickup? The Zeroes were the best fighters in the Pacific, but still, the FM2s, even the earlier F4Fs, with guys like Joe Foss at the stick, downed their share of them. Put the aircraft in its element, with a crack pilot, and every one of these aircraft could do the job, and, indeed, they did.
> 
> Hey, I’m just sayin'...



And entitled to your opinion...

In the mean time as I attend a Twin Otter maintenance familiarization course in Toronto, I meet a fellow student who works out of North Carolina at a place that has a several Twin Otters, some King Airs, a few other corp jets, and oh yea, a DC-3 that was around during the war. Its used regularly so he tells me...

Hey, I'm just sayin'....


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 2, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And entitled to your opinion...
> 
> In the mean time as I attend a Twin Otter maintenance familiarization course in Toronto, I meet a fellow student who works out of North Carolina at a place that has a several Twin Otters, some King Airs, a few other corp jets, and oh yea, a DC-3 that was around during the war. Its used regularly so he tells me...
> 
> Hey, I'm just sayin'....


 I beg your pardon but I'm at a loss as to how you seem to have inferred from my innocent comment that it was deserving of such a crass reply. The point I was trying to make was that when you're rating anything you pay attention to the period and the suitability of the item to the task at hand. What other aircraft, in June, 1942, could have made a 60-degree dive on an enemy warship with a 1000 pound explosive under its belly, dropped that on its target, then got out of there, safely, and while being shot at from every conceivable direction? I don't know of any other period aircraft that could have done that like the SBD had. That, in my opinion, make's it the best, at that time. If you should think I'm mistaken, endeavor to teach me something. Just make it intelligible, this time, and I'm all ears.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2010)

VBF-13 said:


> I beg your pardon but I'm at a loss as to how you seem to have inferred from my innocent comment that it was deserving of such a crass reply. The point I was trying to make was that when you're rating anything you pay attention to the period and the suitability of the item to the task at hand. What other aircraft, in June, 1942, could have made a 60-degree dive on an enemy warship with a 1000 pound explosive under its belly, dropped that on its target, then got out of there, safely, and while being shot at from every conceivable direction? I don't know of any other period aircraft that could have done that like the SBD had. That, in my opinion, make's it the best, at that time. If you should think I'm mistaken, endeavor to teach me something. Just make it intelligible, this time, and I'm all ears.



First off you need to chill out, there was nothing crass in what I said and if anything it was evident of my innocent sarcasm within my statement. If you bothered to read the whole thread you would have read there were many "friendly" banters within this thread. You're new here, I suggest you read some of the posts and the thread for new members before making such a statment.

Now with that said you bring up "the period and the suitability of the item to the task at hand." Well look at the logistics required to move armies and supplies AND then have that same "item" to be able to function long after the mission is accomplished, it shows that you not only had a machine that did its job on a daily basis, but participated in critical battles and continued to serve years after their intended use, and that being the C-47. The SDB was a great aircraft and continued to serve long after its greatest hour but no way holds any type of innovative uniqueness or technical advancements that would have given it longevity 60 years after its greatest hour. 

Aside from your argument, the success of the SBD at Midway was actually attributed to luck more than anything else. Although I personally don't believe it would have been subjected to the same slaughter that Torpedo 8 was subjected to, it would have been a way different story if the zeros that attacked Waldron's squadron had been at altitude to deal with the SBDs.

Now I do hope my response wasn't too crass for your sensitive being and please don't tell me to make any of my posts "intelligible," as in plain English I will directly tell you that will piss me off!


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 2, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now with that said you bring up "the period and the suitability of the item to the task at hand." Well look at the logistics required to move armies and supplies AND then have that same "item" to be able to function long after the mission is accomplished, it shows that you not only had a machine that did its job on a daily basis, but participated in critical battles and continued to serve years after their intended use, and that being the C-47. The SDB was a great aircraft and continued to serve long after its greatest hour but no way holds any type of innovative uniqueness or technical advancements that would have given it longevity 60 years after its greatest hour.
> 
> Aside from your argument, the success of the SBD at Midway was actually attributed to luck more than anything else. Although I personally don't believe it would have been subjected to the same slaughter that Torpedo 8 was subjected to, it would have been a way different story if the zeros that attacked Waldron's squadron had been at altitude to deal with the SBDs.


 I'm going to overlook the rest of your last reply without comment. Please don't construe that as acquiescence on my part. Construe it rather as I don't have any more time for that than I'm sure you do.

On what's left, I acknowledge that entire top paragraph. Can we let that go at, specific to the tasks, there were a number of "period bests?" I'll settle for that.

As to the bottom paragraph, I'm in agreement, there, as well. Or, at least, largely. In fact, calling it "luck," as you do, is probably even to understate it. That torpedo squadron, however, could never have turned that fleet away, so long as the fleet had firepower left, which it had. Those things had to come in too low to the water, and, as such, were hit, many before they could release their "fish" level. That's, principally, why those failed. Speaking of luck, the Navy just so also happened to have had the right stuff on deck to complete the job, in those "Speedy-Ds." Had there been any other planes, there, in lieu of those, I don't believe we'd have turned that fleet back.

Listen, have a good night. I'm bushed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2010)

VBF-13 said:


> I'm going to overlook the rest of your last reply without comment. Please don't construe that as acquiescence on my part. Construe it rather as I don't have any more time for that than I'm sure you do.
> 
> On what's left, I acknowledge that entire top paragraph. Can we let that go at, specific to the tasks, there were a number of "period bests?" I'll settle for that.


Fair enough


VBF-13 said:


> As to the bottom paragraph, I'm in agreement, there, as well. Or, at least, largely. In fact, calling it "luck," as you do, is probably even to understate it. That torpedo squadron, however, could never have turned that fleet away, so long as the fleet had firepower left, which it had. Those things had to come in too low to the water, and, as such, were hit, many before they could release their "fish" level. That's, principally, why those failed. Speaking of luck, the Navy just so also happened to have had the right stuff on deck to complete the job, in those "Speedy-Ds." Had there been any other planes, there, in lieu of those, I don't believe we'd have turned that fleet back.
> 
> Listen, have a good night. I'm bushed.



All points taken, but in the end to say the SBD was the best aircraft of WW2 is a far stretch based on on where the aircraft was prior to Midway and where it went after. Aside from its layout, construction and systems, it left little in longevity or innovation and its ultimately found itself out to pasture as soon as the war ended as its design was reflective as a norm from a bygone era. The C-47 brought things to the table that made it not only the best aircraft of WW2, but probably of all time.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 3, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All points taken, but in the end to say the SBD was the best aircraft of WW2 is a far stretch based on on where the aircraft was prior to Midway and where it went after. Aside from its layout, construction and systems, it left little in longevity or innovation and its ultimately found itself out to pasture as soon as the war ended as its design was reflective as a norm from a bygone era. The C-47 brought things to the table that made it not only the best aircraft of WW2, but probably of all time.


 OK, we're on track. Thanks. The SBD had its moment of glory, let's just call it. BTW, FWIW, before I had even dared so much as to open my mouth in this thread, I had read about 40 pages or so back. 

Let me just mention this, and I'll fly out of here, for now. Making a dive is a skill. If you consider the Kamikazes, those were in the nature of dive bombers. The only difference was, they had just taught those inexperienced pilots, if you could indeed even call most of them pilots, how to take off, and how to steer the darn things. Those were, to a large extent, Zeroes, although they were other aircraft, too. By that time in the War, Mitsubishi had made hundreds of different models of Zeroes, in a vain effort to gain back their edge against our newer fighters, in particular, the Hellcat. My point is this. While, from an overall strategic standpoint, the philosophy was simple, i.e., just fill the thing with explosives and run it into a warship, from a tactical standpoint, most of those were disasters. When you look at the sinks, they sunk around 50 warships, or so. But, many of the ones that didn't get in, weren't necessarily shot down. They simply couldn't hit their targets. Others dove too steeply, starting those dives from too high up, and literally tore the wings off the frail planes from the acceleration at that steep angle. Many others, of course, came in too "broad," and were sitting ducks for our guns.

My point is, at that time, I don't even think the Japanese had the "Judys," yet. And, the Germans had lacked the machinery and pilot skills to hit moving targets over ocean atmospheric conditions from a 20,000-foot or so descent. From a snapshot- in-time standpoint, those SBDs and those skilled pilots were state-of-the-art, and they did exactly what they had been built and trained to do, in a decisive moment, when they were called upon to do it. And, they were simply the "best" at it. Rating that aircraft on other grounds, most notably, longevity, it can't raise a candle to an aircraft like the C-47, you guys got me, there, unquestionably.


----------



## renrich (Nov 3, 2010)

Michael, the point about overclaiming is that the only way to resolve accurately the claims is to study the opponent's records for he should know how many of his AC did not return and mostly why they did not and he obviously should know how many were damaged. That is the reason that I value Lundstrom's and Shores' work so much because they appear to have exhaustively studied the Japanese records which I am guessing were carefully kept, on the whole, just as the LW's records probably were.

I wonder how accurately the records were kept in the USSR?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2010)

VBF-13 said:


> Making a dive is a skill.



Actually its not - I fly many types of airplanes and I can dive Cessna 150 to an L39. Diving an airplane with a bomb attached to it is a different story but not by much...

You are attaching a flying skill to a specific aircraft. Try flying an aircraft in 1 mile visibility on a landing approach and having an aircraft that could support the best equipment that would enable you to successfully land....

That's my point


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 4, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually its not - I fly many types of airplanes and I can dive Cessna 150 to an L39. Diving an airplane with a bomb attached to it is a different story but not by much...
> 
> You are attaching a flying skill to a specific aircraft. Try flying an aircraft in 1 mile visibility on a landing approach and having an aircraft that could support the best equipment that would enable you to successfully land...
> 
> That's my point


 That's cool. But, just as a point of clarification, I wasn't talking about clowning around when I said it takes skill to make a dive. You may qualify that statement with the rest of that paragraph. Heck, the inexperienced, young kids in the Kamikazes could make a dive. I'll add to that, just FYI, that the SBDs were used throughout the War specifically just to train cadets how to do that. The ground had a way of measuring the angles to the horizon on which they came in, and the pilots would get real-time feedback on that. I'll spare you the rest, but I'll say this much, by the Summer of 1944, they were washing out nearly a third of those cadets, right at that stage, where they were dive-bombing on die markers over the Atlantic and Gulf. Eighteen months, right down the chute, just like that. They told them go be sailors. Not that they had anything against sailors...

*EDIT*: I forgot your second paragraph. It reminds me of Kennedy's kid. If I recall, there were those who tried to pin that on the aircraft. No instrument rating. That's what happened, there. Your point is well-taken, though...


----------



## Civettone (Nov 5, 2010)

Maybe the C-47 was the most important aircraft of WW2 ... but does that make it the best?


Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Maybe the C-47 was the most important aircraft of WW2 ... but does that make it the best?
> 
> 
> Kris



It does - because as stated if you look at what it brought to the table, its bang for the buck and finally longevity, nothing else touches it.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 8, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Maybe the C-47 was the most important aircraft of WW2 ... but does that make it the best?


 Or, what was the best-built aircraft? They seem to be answering that one, too.


----------



## johnbr (Nov 8, 2010)

The Japan's also had a version of the C47 that was made under licence.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 8, 2010)

johnbr said:


> The Japan's also had a version of the C47 that was made under licence.


 Johnbr, who would have been the licensor on that one? I'm afraid I don't understand.


----------



## jtm55 (Nov 8, 2010)

Hi All

For me it has to be the C47 as for all the reasons previously listed. In addition, I live 1 mile from Republic Airport which also is the home of the American Airpower Museum. This museum is unique in that many of the aircraft there still fly. Among the still flying aircraft is a C47. 
I strongly recommend anyone in the Long Island NY area go visit this museum, you won't regret it. Here's the link to the museum http://www.americanairpowermuseum.com/Website/Index.aspx


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2010)

VBF-13 said:


> Johnbr, who would have been the licensor on that one? I'm afraid I don't understand.



Japan purchased a licencing production agreement from Douglas prior to the war commencing. Showa / Nakajima L2D2 "Tabby " was the aircraft.


----------



## VBF-13 (Nov 9, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Japan purchased a licencing production agreement from Douglas prior to the war commencing. Showa / Nakajima L2D2 "Tabby " was the aircraft.


 That's a fascinating tidbit, you guys. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

Civettone said:


> Maybe the C-47 was the most important aircraft of WW2 ... but does that make it the best?
> 
> 
> Kris



Yup...

Case closed....


----------



## renrich (Jul 10, 2011)

Just to tack onto this thread and not necessarily to designate the best WW2 aircraft, in reading the book on the report on the October, 1944, Fighter Conference, a factor not often realised by many of us, including me, is the environment inside the cockpit. Especially for the long range escort fighter, that environment could have a huge impact on pilot success. In the meetings held at the conference there was a lot of discussion about instrument panel layouts, heating and ventilation, size and comfort of the cockpit and seat, legroom, visibility, oxygen bottles for bailout at high altitudes, noise, etc. For instance, the bubble canopies usually gave better visibility but were not an unmixed blessing since in certain conditions the cockpit became very hot. Those guys who flew the high altitude long range escort missions had a lot to contend with beside hostile enemy action. It had to have been a young man's job.

Maybe we should start a thread to discuss which WW2 fighter had the best environment overall for the pilot in the cockpit?


----------



## Elvis (Jul 11, 2011)

Hey Renrich, what's up?
Been a while since I've been around here.

In response to your statement, I understand that "comfort" was one of the things pilots liked about the P-39/P-63.
They had doors, so you got in them like you would a car, and the cockpit was rather roomy.
Another thing that pilots would mention as being fatiguing on long flights was the vibration from the engine/propeller.
-51 pilots who did long range escorts in the later part of the war mentioned that, sometimes, by the time they were needed, they were numb and almost "stupid" from being vibrated to death for the past 4-6 hours.
...that was one of the really nice thing about the jets. They were _smooth_.



Elvis


----------



## renrich (Jul 11, 2011)

Well, the cockpit of the P39 was built for a pilot who was 5'8" or less so it must have been pretty cramped and neither the P39 or P63 had the range to be a long range escort. It was said at the fighter conference that the P47 was a quiet cockpit and I have read a pilot of the F4U to say the cockpit of the Corsair was quiet and vibration free compared to the Hellcat. A good feature of the P51 was that the operation of the super charger was automatic. The FW190 needed only one control for prop, mixture and throttle which reduced pilot load but may have made formation flying difficult.


----------



## marshall (Jul 11, 2011)

renrich said:


> The FW190 needed only one control for prop, mixture and throttle which reduced pilot load but may have made formation flying difficult.


 
Why would it made formation flying more difficult?

I'm no pilot (unfortunately) that's why I'm asking.


----------



## renrich (Jul 11, 2011)

I think it has something to do with the fine tuning that needs to be done to keep a formation of AC all going in the same direction at the same altitude and speed.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 11, 2011)

Hi Guys,
I haven't had time to read this whole post yet but the question demands only one answer. I'm in total agreement with FlyboyJ.
C-47..........................PERIOD!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 11, 2011)

renrich said:


> Just to tack onto this thread and not necessarily to designate the best WW2 aircraft, in reading the book on the report on the October, 1944, Fighter Conference, a factor not often realised by many of us, including me, is the environment inside the cockpit. Especially for the long range escort fighter, that environment could have a huge impact on pilot success. In the meetings held at the conference there was a lot of discussion about instrument panel layouts, heating and ventilation, size and comfort of the cockpit and seat, legroom, visibility, oxygen bottles for bailout at high altitudes, noise, etc. For instance, the bubble canopies usually gave better visibility but were not an unmixed blessing since in certain conditions the cockpit became very hot. Those guys who flew the high altitude long range escort missions had a lot to contend with beside hostile enemy action. It had to have been a young man's job.
> 
> Maybe we should start a thread to discuss which WW2 fighter had the best environment overall for the pilot in the cockpit?


 
That's actually a pretty good point.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 11, 2011)

Too easy,
For a fighter it had to be the P-47. It had a living room, bathroom and a den. Some pilots got in trouble thinking it had a bedroom also.....I'll miss those guys.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 11, 2011)

I forgot to mention the backyard view of the bubble canape. I read in THUNDERBOLT that Robert S. Johnson was thinking about building on a deck.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 13, 2011)

CORSNING said:


> Hi Guys,
> I haven't had time to read this whole post yet but the question demands only one answer. I'm in total agreement with FlyboyJ.
> C-47..........................PERIOD!


+1...million.

...but what about the L-4?
It featured a similar versatility over its military carreer, just not exactly the same ones that the C-47 did.


Elvis


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 15, 2011)

".... it had to be the P-47. It had a living room, bathroom and a den. Some pilots got in trouble thinking it had a bedroom also..."

You forgot the air con .... .

Definitely the P-47. And like those Cadillac North Star engines that run when the oil has gone - the 47 would bring a pilot home with a couple of cylinders shot off.

Peace of mind. 

MM


----------



## bogy (Jul 20, 2011)

Hy to all. What about japanes fighters? They have Zero, the last version, A6M5 HEI with guns was similar with F6 Hellcat in performances. With a pilot like Nishizawa, it was the best fighter ever. 
What about KI 84 Hayate (Frank). It is a fact that the P 51 can't cach it. 

And, no doubt, the Me 109 G6 flight by Bazu Cantacuzino it was the best.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 21, 2011)

bogy,
The title simply said best. If I'm reading it right that means did the most to win/support during the few years of WW2. Not the best fighter, bomber, cargo or anything else. Just simply the best of them all. C-47!!!!!


----------



## renrich (Jul 23, 2011)

I have heard often that the KI84 was a high performing fighter but my source, "Aircraft of World War II" by Kenneth Munson says the KI84Ia, could get a vmax of 388 mph at 19680 feet. That is not even close to a P51D or for that matter the F6F5 or F4U4. Munson says the KI84-III was supposed to have a 2000 HP supercharged engine and was not completed before the end of the war. Where does the info about the Hayate being so fast come from?


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 24, 2011)

renrich,
US test of late model Ki.84-Ia with high octain fuel gave it 427mph/20,000ft and 4,275fpm/S.L. A Japanese document gave it a speed of 430mph. (conditions vague). And then a US comparative document giving it 422mph around 20,000ft. This is all discussed in detail in another Thread elsewhere on this sight.


----------



## renrich (Jul 24, 2011)

That sounds like a production model in service during the war would not approach those figures. Nevertheless, the Hayate could not run away from the P51D, 435MPH, P51B, 450 mph, or the F4U4, 446 mph. Of course, all those numbers are going to vary according to the airplane tested, it's condition and age.


----------



## Kryten (Jul 28, 2011)

not to mention build quality, I dont think we realise how variable the performance of hand built aircraft , built on a production line in a rush as it was in those days, we all like to quote performance figures but a lot would be worse in both handling and speed and some would be better!
Ginger Lacey in his book recounts giving Victor Beamish a sub standard Spit for dogfight practice and ran rings round him un till Victor suggested they swap planes!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 29, 2011)

As a rough generalization, Jap aircraft could not outrun Allied aircraft of the same time frame. They generally could outclimb their equivalent counterparts, nearly always had a good turn of range and firepower, but were generally weak defensively, even after this issue had been addressed in later designs. 

These are the broad strengths and weknesses of Japanese designs


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2011)

Japanese Navy planes had fair fire power, Japanese Army planes were generally poor in fire power until the Ki 84.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 29, 2011)

yes, you are right


----------



## renrich (Jul 29, 2011)

Those Japanese Army fighters in the CBI, according to Shores in "Bloody Shambles" were amazingly competitive, late in the war, with Allied aircraft. This being a somewhat Euro-centric forum, I don't believe many of the members are aware of that. I boggles my mind to think about the Japanese fighters that soldiered on with only two cowl mounted Mgs. Us members get all exercised about whether fighters need two or four cannons and several Mgs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2011)

Just think of the trouble the Japanese could have caused in that theater, if instead of building thousands of Ki 43s during 1943-44, they had built a plane using the Ki-44 engine but using a wing between the Ki-43 and the Ki-84 and been able to arm it with even four 12.7mm mgs? or even two 12.7s and two 7.7s since many people believe a lot of the later production Ki 43s didn't use two 12.7guns. Fewer of the allied planes that came home "sporting" multiple hits would have made it. No difference in the final out come but the cost for the allies would have been higher.


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

I amazed the Japs didn't SR6. They were ( are) technically advanced in may areas, why the oversight with firepower I wonder?
The same could be said of some Italian aircraft from WW2.
Cheers
John


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 26, 2011)

Maybe a process of elimination is a good way to go about this (?)
If there were no C-47, what would have been used, and how would this have affected the war?
Perhaps the C-46 would have fulfilled this role (?)


----------



## parsifal (Aug 29, 2011)

I thought the c-46 had difficulty getting the altitud to make it over the Hump? Might be wrong....


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 29, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I thought the c-46 had difficulty getting the altitud to make it over the Hump? Might be wrong....


The C-46 had a superior service ceiling well over 27,000 feet and made the "hump" no problem, the C-47 wasn't too bad with a ceiling of 26,400 feet.

The DC-3s they used early on was a harrowing ride due to it's much lower max altitude


----------



## davparlr (Sep 1, 2011)

The C-46 seems to be one of those very good aircraft that was overshadowed by a much more noted contemporary. It certainly had much better performance than the C-47, but was not so prevalent.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 2, 2011)

genuine question....did the C-46 remain in service for as long as some of the c-47s?

If the C-46 could do everything the c-47 could do, and had no serious vices, why have we determined that the c-47 was the best aircraft. surely the Dak was a transport aircraft, but if not the best, then why arent we giving the gong to the best in that class????


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2011)

davparlr said:


> The C-46 seems to be one of those very good aircraft that was overshadowed by a much more noted contemporary. It certainly had much better performance than the C-47, but was not so prevalent.


Had an instructor when in A&P shcool who flew both. According to him the C-46 performed better but wasn't as smooth to fly, it was also more difficult to maintain.



parsifal said:


> genuine question....did the C-46 remain in service for as long as some of the c-47s?
> 
> If the C-46 could do everything the c-47 could do, and had no serious vices, why have we determined that the c-47 was the best aircraft. surely the Dak was a transport aircraft, but if not the best, then why arent we giving the gong to the best in that class????


The C-46 is still around, not as many as the -47 but some can be found in Alaska.

The C-46 was able to out perform the -47 in some cases but it was more difficult to fly and harder to maintain. The C-47 was more efficent to operate and was more user friendly. Additionally Douglas supported their product in the field better, probably because of the numbers that were being used in the post WW2 era.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 2, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The C-46 is still around, not as many as the -47 but some can be found in Alaska.



I think there are still some flying in Canada and believe there are some in Kenya and other places in Africa.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 2, 2011)

yep. Buffalo Airways in Canada (NWT) flies a C-46.


----------



## p47thunderboltking (Feb 18, 2013)

I dont know
Id guess the P-51 was up there somewhere


----------



## zoomar (Feb 19, 2013)

K-class blimps. Seriously, there is no such thing as a single "best" airplane in WW2. "Greatest", yes, best no.


----------



## VinceReeves (Feb 20, 2013)

Cromwell Tank!


----------



## vinnye (Feb 20, 2013)

That Cromwell gets my vote!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 22, 2013)

Thats gonna hurt when it lands.....


----------



## Denniss (Feb 23, 2013)

Must be hard for the suspension system as well


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 23, 2013)

Early versions could do 40 mph. Later versions were re-geared to limit top speed to about 32mph. In part to help save the suspension systems even if few drivers attempted to "fly".


----------



## VinceReeves (Feb 23, 2013)

Taking off to intercept some MiG's over Korea....


----------



## Glider (Feb 23, 2013)

That photo always reminds me of an incident in WW1. One of the first tanks did a demonstration in front of the King which involved going down a huge drop. When the demo was over four or five of the crew came out and were introduced to the King. He wanted to look inside but was stopped by an officer who distracted him and away he went. It was only later he found out that the reason he had been stopped was because the rest of the crew were lying around inside the tank unconsious.


----------



## Readie (Feb 25, 2013)

A contender?


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 25, 2013)

Is it powered by a Merlin?


----------



## Readie (Feb 25, 2013)

In 1942, developed an experimental wiroszybowiec called Hafner Rotabuggy which was created as a modification of the popular jeep . In December 1942, the inventor of Rotabuggy, Raoul Hafner proposed to build a similar wiroszybowca based on infantry tank Valentine. Hafner developed powerful rotor diameter of 152 feet (46 m) and a small stabilizing tail that were to be attached to Valentine.

I'll have a pint of whatever Mr Hafner was drinking !


----------



## Readie (Feb 25, 2013)

Madder than mad?


----------



## meatloaf109 (Feb 25, 2013)

Only if he is trying to lift the truck!


----------



## Readie (Feb 26, 2013)

Driver...'Hey Bobby Joe can't y'all take off?'
Pilot... 'i would Billy Bob...if those damn Brits would gi'me a Merlin'


----------



## Poor Old Spike (Feb 27, 2013)

_*"Once you have flown a Spitfire, it spoils you for all other fighters. Every other aircraft seems imperfect in one way or another"
-Lt. Col. William R. Dunn USAAF*_

William R. Dunn (1916–1995) was the first American ace of World War II. 
Joining the Canadian Army at the outbreak of war in September 1939, he was an infantryman until he transferred to the Royal Air Force (RAF) in late 1940. 
After service in an RAF Eagle Squadron, he joined the United States Army Air Force in 1943.


----------

