# IF YOU WERE RICH AND COULD AFFORD ANY WWII PLANE ...



## Jank (Sep 19, 2006)

I mean filthy rich. A multi-billionaire.

If you could afford any WWII operational aircraft and all required maintenance, what would you choose and why?


----------



## Henk (Sep 19, 2006)

Me-262, Fw-190, Fw Dora and the last remaining Horten 229 for viewing only. 

Ho-229, no explanation needed, the Fw-190 and Dora were such lovely planes and the Me-262 because I love the Me-262.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 19, 2006)

A nice Mosquito its peppy could carry a pax with luggage a fair range it probably has a better cockpit for instrument flying then a single seater


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 19, 2006)

FW-190, beautiful plane to look at and fly. Legend in its time, a lot of great men flew those planes, I would lucky (and honored) to be able to connect or have something in common with those men.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 19, 2006)

Something with a gentle handling to start, like a Spit MK I (that for me is still the most beautiful). Then go wild with top performances: Ta152 and F7F Tigercat for the twins.


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 19, 2006)

B-25J, so I could take my friends up.


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 20, 2006)

Vultee Vengeance, cos I love em!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 20, 2006)

-a lanc because i love them and would be able to fly in formation with the RAF once it's over from Canada 
-a Meteor for quite gentle handling yet good speed plus looks
-a TBM Avenger for carrying the shopping 
-a swordfish for those lazy sunday afternoons
-a spit for picking up the ladies
-a Fury/Tempest II for when i wanna be a bad boi racer...........


----------



## mastoras (Sep 20, 2006)

A Ki-84 Hayate to shoot down the rest of you !!!!!


----------



## Chief (Sep 20, 2006)

I would buy a Zero, Me-109, P-51, and a Spitfire. Get them combat worthy. Load them with paintballs Then I would have a the most pointless dog fight in the history of stupid. 

That and I would visit some guys who gave me a tough time in highschool.

"OMG, What happened to my car." "Oh, wow those are some nice planes in the sky"


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 20, 2006)

I'd go for a Mossie Mark XVIII for paintball purposes, a Typhoon, a Whitley, a Stirling for transport purposes and the fact that I'd be the only person in the world with one of those


----------



## Wurger (Sep 20, 2006)

PZL P-23 Karas and PZL P-37 Los - because, no one of these planes hasn't existed yet and 
they are the important part of the Polish Air Force history.
Fw 190 - as Hunter368 wrote. Besides, to shoot down Mastoras and his idea.


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 20, 2006)

Just leave it to my Mossie- one hit from that 6 pounder and he's in pieces


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2006)

I would buy a Bf-109G because it is my favorite aircraft, then I would buy a Fw-190D-9 and then a Spitfire.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 20, 2006)

I would buy a Spitfire, BF-109, Ta-152 (and a Dora) as well as a Mossie and a lanc for transport purposes and then a Meteor and Me-262's for jets and a late mark Spitfire/SeaFury/Tempest for those times when you just want to go fast...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 20, 2006)

I'd purchase an F4F wildcat, take flying lessons, then fly it. The wildcat may not be the best plane, but I like it's design and the fact that it held it's own against the zero. Also I'd go for an ME-262, and a C-47 or B-25 whichever easier to handle and can comfortably seat my friends.


----------



## report2me4 (Sep 20, 2006)

Ohh a Ju 87G - for traffic jams - nice and slow so i can see their faces - but then i would also want a bit of siren to add to the squeeky bum feeling so i would have to go back to a D for the dive bombing!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 20, 2006)

First and foremost, I'd have a Whirlwind built to flyable standard, or maybe a squadron of them...

There are none surviving, so it would be a job from scratch.

Then it would be a Typhoon: only one survivor and that one is improperly restored (wrong upper cowling, spinner, wheel covers and a few other pieces). I'd have to get a Sabre II production line up as well... after all, you need the Tyffies youngs, friskier sister up in the air as well. I'd love to see a Tempest and a Typhoon on the wing together.

Then a Mossie built to flyable standard, Mk XVI with a bulged belly and high alt Merlin 71s for preferance.

Finally a Ki-61 Hein, just because they look very cool.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2006)

A PBY! Why?!?

I would fly to places where scantly clothed women could be found along tropical coastlines sunbathing on the beaches or on the decks of boats.


----------



## Wurger (Sep 20, 2006)

I've known FLYBOYJ likes beer and girls( maybe the sequence is not proper)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A PBY! Why?!?
> 
> I would fly to places where scantly clothed women could be found along tropical coastlines sunbathing on the beaches or on the decks of boats.



Im your co pilot!


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 20, 2006)

.. I remember when I was flying my ultralight: I live close to a river and there are small islands with trees and tiny shores where many girls use to go and sunbath naked and undisturbed.
Big surprise for them to see a big noisy butterfly flying low and slow with a moron smiling and waving hello...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2006)

Parmigiano said:


> .. I remember when I was flying my ultralight: I live close to a river and there are small islands with trees and tiny shores where many girls use to go and sunbath naked and undisturbed.
> Big surprise for them to see a big noisy butterfly flying low and slow with a moron smiling and waving hello...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Im your co pilot!


I need a flight engineer and at least 2 other hands. Any takers?!? 8)


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I need a flight engineer and at least 2 other hands. Any takers?!? 8)




Count me in, I will bring the drinks and the lotion for the girls.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2006)

A FW-190 D-12 with a Jumo 213 EB engine


----------



## Chief (Sep 20, 2006)

It probably wouldn't be a bad Idea to pay somebody high up to find the missing designs to the B-29. Than I would pay someone to build it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2006)

Parmigiano said:


> .. I remember when I was flying my ultralight: I live close to a river and there are small islands with trees and tiny shores where many girls use to go and sunbath naked and undisturbed.
> Big surprise for them to see a big noisy butterfly flying low and slow with a moron smiling and waving hello...





We would do the same thing when flying around in our Blackhawks over here in Germany.


----------



## daishi12 (Sep 20, 2006)

I think I'd have a Hurricane Mk1 - just love them,
a Ju 57 - so slow and ugly somebody has to show them TLC 
a Blohm + Voss Bv 141 - the idea behind an asymetric aircraft is fascinating,
and finally an Arado AR 196 - cos I live right next to a lake


----------



## Erich (Sep 20, 2006)

if I had the time and not necessairly the funds, but I would go back to Denmark and search to see if there is a surviving Ju 88G-6 after the war. I do know of one Bf 110G-4 from NJG 3 that has been restored and is "hiding" in an old hanger in Denmark. I have photo proof but cannot release the colour photos due to the owners wishes. all I can say it makes a guy drool looking at the machine and the cockpit fully restored and cleaned in the original state


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2006)

Wow I would love to see that!


----------



## Erich (Sep 20, 2006)

Chris I have over two dozen colur pics while the craft is in the hanger, on a farm. One day hopefully he will write back and say go ahead. I did thoughtlessly put two pics up on a German aviation board some years back trying to clarify a statement and thinking a pic/two would help ............ ooooops the owner got word real quick but was nice enough to be mellow and asked me politely to remove them. Several German chaps wrote me privates asking me where did the pics go that I had posted. 

Ah well in time......


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 20, 2006)

.. oops, I forgot: I also want a Fi156 Storch for groceries and relax.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 20, 2006)

oh i remember annother one, how could i forget the lizzie!


----------



## Ken812 (Sep 20, 2006)

I would love to own a P-47 thunderbolt (razorback and bubblecanopy), P-51D and a Battle of Britain Spitfire and Hurricane. Thats not much to ask for.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2006)

Erich said:


> if I had the time and not necessairly the funds, but I would go back to Denmark and search to see if there is a surviving Ju 88G-6 after the war. I do know of one Bf 110G-4 from NJG 3 that has been restored and is "hiding" in an old hanger in Denmark. I have photo proof but cannot release the colour photos due to the owners wishes. all I can say it makes a guy drool looking at the machine and the cockpit fully restored and cleaned in the original state




Hehe, I actually think I know where that is


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 20, 2006)

Fiat G.50. God knows why, it isnt my favourite plane and it isnt the one id most like to fly, but id just want a G.50.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2006)

Perhaps its because you're to scared to fly a G.55 or Reggiane 2005 ??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 20, 2006)

Even an expert pilot like me with a grand total of 1 hour flying time wouldnt want to risk sacrificing such a beautiful aircraft...  I suppose I like the idea of the open cockpit, scarf blowing in the wind and flying goggle leaving a red mark around my eyes


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2006)

You're sure the part about the open cockpit isn't because you like the idea of being able to escape quickly in case of an emergency ??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 20, 2006)

Oh im quite sure


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 20, 2006)

CC, consider to take the MC200 instead, the G50 was extremely tricky. The 200, after they corrected the bad stall of the first units, was reported as a nice plane to fly.
And when landing remember that in Italian planes the throttle was 'upside down'...


----------



## v2 (Sep 20, 2006)

I would buy a PZL-11 because it is my favorite aircraft and she is the important part of the Polish Air Force history. The second one is a Mosquito- I love it.


----------



## Micdrow (Sep 20, 2006)

To be honest if I had that kind of money I would travel the world looking for lost aircraft to be restored. Once I found enough I would buy a piece of land and make 7 hangers that are themed out in the area of which there country had them in World War II. This piece of land would also have to be situated next to a body of calm water. Reason being is I would love to see some World War II flying boats flying also. Once I have a pretty good museum going I would open it to the public and put on airshows for others to enjoy. 

United States
Great Britain
Soviet Union
Germany
Japan
Other nations such as Poland, Finland, Neitherlands, Italy.

The rarer the aircraft the better is my saying. To me it would be awsome to see such a variety of aircraft in one spot not to mention it would be a world treasure spot for all to see. The ideal collection would be one of every aircraft type that served in World War II.  

Micdrow


----------



## JF3D (Sep 21, 2006)

I'd a bought that Fleet class Carrier that was for sale here a few years ago. Formed a composite wing with every Grumman I Could find, Wildcat, Hellcat, Tigercat, Bearcat, Avenger and as a bonus for the Commonwealth folks, a Stringbag, Sea Hurricane, and a Sea Fury.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2006)

nice plan


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2006)

That sounds like a good plan.


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 21, 2006)

I'd have to get a F4U-1D Corsair, A P-38J Lightning, and just for something different and because I can afford one, a Reggiane 2005.


----------



## helmitsmit (Sep 22, 2006)

I'd get a Mossie and then a Hornet.


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 22, 2006)

Good choice!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 22, 2006)

How about a Tempest or Typhoon? Got some of the most powerful guns on any WWII fighter and could take it too. Even the FW's had to watch out for them.

I really can't say that would be the one I would want most since there are lots of other planes I like.

Though about the Mustang, I don't think I would buy it. All I have to do is find one of the many pilots that still flies the old Veterans and ask to borrow it for a couple hours. There's plenty to spare if one of them gets a bit knocked up.  

Maybe for bombers a B-29 would be cool.


----------



## uhhuh35 (Sep 23, 2006)

Bristol-Centaurus powered Sea Fury and the Dash 2 Bearcat.


----------



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

> I'd get a Mossie and then a Hornet



getting both seems a little pointless to me


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 23, 2006)

Parmigiano said:


> CC, consider to take the MC200 instead, the G50 was extremely tricky. The 200, after they corrected the bad stall of the first units, was reported as a nice plane to fly.
> And when landing remember that in Italian planes the throttle was 'upside down'...



I know there are a bundle of other planes that are more logical and better choices...but for some reason my heart wants a G.50...and I have no idea why


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 23, 2006)

Super rich: B24

Moderatly rich..... a collection of Japanese aircraft like the (Betty, Tony, Oscar and Zero), all painted up in their unit colors from the SW Pacific


----------



## WEISNER (Sep 23, 2006)

Make mine a JU88 G-6, plenty of room to bring along some friends and they can track other aircraft useing the Radar system for somthing to do while tooling around.
Kevin


----------



## Marcel (Sep 24, 2006)

I would take the Fokker GI 'cause it was quite a good plane and everybody always seem to forget they ever existed. The only modern plane in the Netherlands, quite heavily armed with 9 machineguns, could have taken up a good fight with the germans had they existed in higher numbers instead of about 20.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2006)

WEISNER said:


> Make mine a JU88 G-6, plenty of room to bring along some friends and they can track other aircraft useing the Radar system for somthing to do while tooling around.
> Kevin



Turn on the radar while in flight?


----------



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

the second you do my mossies will be on your back faster than syscom to a debate


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2006)

Why the hell not. We are talking about buying these planes today.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 24, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> the second you do my mossies will be on your back faster than syscom to a debate



I would take a mossie against an -88 any day


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 24, 2006)

Fokker GI. 












I didn't know the P-38 had a big nosed cousin! 

Come to think of it it looks like a relative of the P-61 too........


----------



## Marcel (Sep 24, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Fokker GI.
> 
> 
> I didn't know the P-38 had a big nosed cousin!
> ...



Good looking, isn't it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2006)

If you say so...


----------



## Chocks away! (Sep 25, 2006)

JF3D said:


> I'd a bought that Fleet class Carrier that was for sale here a few years ago. Formed a composite wing with every Grumman I Could find, Wildcat, Hellcat, Tigercat, Bearcat, Avenger and as a bonus for the Commonwealth folks, a Stringbag, Sea Hurricane, and a Sea Fury.


No Seafire?


----------



## Henk (Sep 25, 2006)

Oh, Lanc I would get a He-219 and kick your Mossie @ss and enjoy doing it.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 26, 2006)

You'd be better off with a Ju-88G6 or Me-262 but anyway...


----------



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

yeah the Uhu was pretty poor operationally... looks cool though..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2006)

Very nice looking aircraft and I would love to have one for her looks alone.


----------



## Erich (Sep 28, 2006)

Uhu kick a Mossies *ss ? rather doubtful if it was a Mossie XIX or XXX.

hey I've been all over the Me 262 recon craft at Chino, I would love to own that thing in working condition, I should post a pic of me and that jet-job on a beautiful autumn day in October


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2006)

That would be an excellent idea Erich...

If I had millions, Id scour the globe and get myself a Ta 152H series...


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 29, 2006)

Yes that would be sweet.


----------



## Erich (Sep 29, 2006)

totally agree .............. a Ta 152H in the garage and out every morn for a high alt. spin

YES !


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2006)

And go to ALL the Mustang Airshows and finally prove once and for all how overly superior it is..


----------



## Hunter368 (Sep 29, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> And go to ALL the Mustang Airshows and finally prove once and for all how overly superior it is..




LMFAO, Yeh that would show all those Yankees who had the better plane.....oh wait a second......



 

That would be funny to see.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A PBY! Why?!?
> 
> I would fly to places where scantly clothed women could be found along tropical coastlines sunbathing on the beaches or on the decks of boats.



Great airplane for adventure! Cousteau had one. Take your tanks and hiking boots and visit great WWII sites few have visited.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 30, 2006)

Well the P-51H would be a screamer, but everybody has a P-51. A spitfire would be nice, but everybody has one. I think the Fw-190A. If I had to select one aircraft a the best looking in WWII, this is it. It looks like it would be a great plane to fly.

[lesofprimus=QUOTE]
And go to ALL the Mustang Airshows and finally prove once and for all how overly superior it is..

[/QUOTE]

Only if there were no P-51Hs there, but then that's been discussed in detail elsewhere. I never did see the performance update on the Ta-152. The discussion ended kind of mysteriously.


----------



## Pursuit51 (Oct 1, 2006)

I would choose P-47D, P-61, and the 19:1 kill ratio F6F


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 1, 2006)

Im with Les on this on the Ta-152H but I would still have to get my Bf-109G first.


----------



## Soren (Oct 1, 2006)

It will be interesting to see how well Flugwerk's Dora-9 does when it gets up and flying soon  I'd take that bird to every Mustang show in the world with full confidence !

But here's the funny part, its going to be powered by a V-1710 Allison engine ! I hope this one can match the original power of the Jumo engine at 1,750 HP and 2,100 HP with water injection.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 1, 2006)

Ive been watching Flugwerk pretty closely lately. I would love to buy there Fw-190A and eventually the Dora and the 109G when they are ready. On there website they said they eventually want to start reproducing many warbirds from WW2 including P-47, P-51 and Spitfires.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 1, 2006)

Either a P-38, P-47, or P-51. 
If i wanted a bomber, I would either go with a B-17, He-111, or B-25.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 1, 2006)

Soren said:


> It will be interesting to see how well Flugwerk's Dora-9 does when it gets up and flying soon  I'd take that bird to every Mustang show in the world with full confidence !



Like I've indicated before, your confidence would sorely misplaced if a P-51H showed up.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 2, 2006)

A longer list pertains to me, so hear me out...

Dautless SBD-5: They are stinkin' cool, with their sleek lines, heavy war load, and diving speed. I would use this for grocerys, maybe teaching other people to fly (nahhhhh).

P-38: In case I want to visit some one far away, but dont feel like sitting in an airliner.

Bell P-63A Kingcobra: That was a beautiful plane, which could have done pretty well in American service. After all, look what the Russians did with 'em. Between this, the P-40, and the Do 335 they would be my "show off-fly around reeeeeaalllly fast" planes.

Curtiss P-40Q: The last model of the Warhawk, it never went into serial production. Lovely plane, combining all the strengths of a normal Warhawk with high altitude performance, bubble canopy, 400+ miles per hour top speed, and possibly a heavier weapons load (4 20mm guns were tested). I just love these planes.

Dornier 335: Do I really have to explain *why* someone would want one of these planes?

CA-12 Boomberang: Looks cool, and it could be a lead in trainer for me to get used to the planes before I step up to the other ones.

Junkers 290: Cause I gotta have the staff meeting/private airliner, and it comes with terrorist detterant on board (6 20mm guns, 1 machine gun, and my personal body guards  )


----------



## squadron_leader_barton (Oct 3, 2006)

the de havaland mosquito was beautifull, but the dehavaland hornet was even better, although it only saw a few days active service before the war ended.

why?? think of the crowds reaction at an airshow as twin rols roice giffon's pound passed them!!!!!


----------



## Erich (Oct 3, 2006)

yep get the Smithsonian Ta 152H from Walter Loos up and running please and then send it over here to southern Oregon as I have friends that would luv to fly that hot rod job 

as to the performance data sheet(s), I am still awaiting more conclusive info from Germany besides the Monogram thick monster book has not been published yet which should give some sort of clarification to the matter .......... I hope.

Am hoping the P-61 that is in restoration will be flyable, but at least they should try and get it running. Find me a Ju 88G-6 ~  so we can pit agasint an RAF Mossie intruder


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Like I've indicated before, your confidence would sorely misplaced if a P-51H showed up.



Nope, it wouldn't, and esp. not if my Dora's got GM-1, a D-12 prop and wheel doors, cause then I'd smoke any P-51 in a heartbeat. 

Will be interesting to see how well the Allison engine makes Flugwerk's Dora perform, I've heard that if you want to you can boost the Allison up to 4000 HP ! So tuning it for 2100 HP shouldn't pose a problem - the torque curve might be slightly lower than the Jumo 213's though and that' might cause some difference in performance compared to the original machine.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 3, 2006)

Soren said:


> Nope, it wouldn't, and esp. not if my Dora's got GM-1, a D-12 prop and wheel doors, cause then I'd smoke any P-51 in a heartbeat.




You nor anybody else has supported that statement with data concerning the P-51H vs. the Ta 154, much less the Fw-190D-9. I heard rumors but nobody anted up. In fact, I suspect that you cannot justify that statement with data about the D-9 in comparison to the P-51B using fuel available when the Dora was flying. Show me the stats relative to speed, climb rate, time to climb, power to weight, wing loading, or anything other measurment that would support your argument. Of course the planes would have to be equally matched in fuel and weapons load. I can be open minded and my opinion can be changed. As of what I have seen, the P-51H clearly superior to the P-51D and Ta 152H (below 30k ft), and would certainly be more than competitive with the best German, Italian, or Japanese had to offer (not including jets or rockets).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2006)

How do you suspect to support your statements abou the P-51H when it never met against the Ta-152H?

Cant...


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2006)

davparlr said:


> You nor anybody else has supported that statement with data concerning the P-51H vs. the Ta 154, much less the Fw-190D-9. I heard rumors but nobody anted up. In fact, I suspect that you cannot justify that statement with data about the D-9 in comparison to the P-51B using fuel available when the Dora was flying. Show me the stats relative to speed, climb rate, time to climb, power to weight, wing loading, or anything other measurment that would support your argument. Of course the planes would have to be equally matched in fuel and weapons load. I can be open minded and my opinion can be changed. As of what I have seen, the P-51H clearly superior to the P-51D and Ta 152H (below 30k ft), and would certainly be more than competitive with the best German, Italian, or Japanese had to offer (not including jets or rockets).



Oh I have supported it MANY times now davparlr, many times !

The D-12 which was equipped with GM-1 did 770 + km/h at altitude, thats very much faster than the P-51H ! And the D-12 prop added atleast another 1.5-2 m/s in climb rate giving the Dora a climb rate of 24.5 m/s (4,822 ft/min) at sea-level.

Look in the "Interesting P-38 comments" thread..


----------



## Erich (Oct 3, 2006)

Agreed, why bring up an a/c that never saw service agasint the Ta 152H during the war in the ETO ?

man I need a Bier !


----------



## Jank (Oct 3, 2006)

P-51H balls to the wall and weighing in at 9,000lbs.

5,650fpm climb at 5,000ft.

7.3 minutes to 30,000ft. 

487mph top speed at 30,000ft.


----------



## rochie (Oct 3, 2006)

i'd have an F4u or an fw 190d-9


----------



## johnbr (Oct 3, 2006)

For me it would be a Vought xf5u-1 or a Horton ho 229.


----------



## Soren (Oct 3, 2006)

*Adler and Erich,*

I agree, why discuss a fighter which didn't see service until well after WWII.


*davparlr,*

Instead of looking at that calculated chart why don't you take a look at what the P-51H 'really' could; 
*453 mph at 21,000 ft and 4,700 ft/min at sea level, 30,000 ft reached in 9½ min*:


----------



## Jank (Oct 3, 2006)

I thought the P-51H was a hotter performer. So the 487mph figure was not a speed obtained through an actual flight test in combat trim?

In that case, I'd rather have a P-47N with a D fuel load! (The N had a 100 gallon fuel cell in each wing that could be left empty without problems of condensation like fuel tanks had.) In other words, an N would be like a D but weighing 500 more pounds, with 265 more horsepower and a larger wing area with squared wing tips.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 3, 2006)

Soren said:


> *Adler and Erich,*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Oct 4, 2006)

*davparlr*,

The chart you posted is a calculated one made in September 1944, and as evident they were VERY over-positive about suspected performance ! 

The charts I posted are based on real test-flights with a clean aircraft conducted in october 1946.

And forget about wing-loading davparlr, cause the P-51 used a laminar flow wing design (Root = NACA 66-( 1.8 )15.5 Tip = NACA 66-( 1.8 )12 ) which in turn didn't produce nearly as much lift pr. area as a conventional wing design esp. in tight turns - A Laminar flow wing will stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing. 

Note: The effects a laminar flow wing has on turn performance in particular can be seen in the AFDU comparison between the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest.

Now about FW-190 Dora performance, I'm going to make this as clear as possible this time (For the millionth time ! )

Based on test-flights;

*24.3.1945*; Climb rate at fully loaded weight _with_ ETC-504: (D-9 prop)
_1: Sonder Notleistung @ 3,250 RPM = 21 m/s
2: Start u. Notleisting @ 3,250 RPM = 17.4 m/s
3: Steig u. Kampfleistung @ 3,000 RPM = 14.9 m/s
4: Höchst Dauerleistung @ 2,700 RPM = 11.3 m/s
Time to climb 10 km (32,800 ft) = 13.4 min._




*11.3.1945*; Max speeds at fully loaded weight _with_ ETC-504: (D-9 prop)
_1: Start u. Notleistung (B4) = 679 km/h at 6.6 km / 567 km/h at SL.
2: Sonder Notleistung (C3) = 702 km/h at 5.7 km / 615 km/h at SL.
3: Sonder Notleistung mit A lader als Bodenmotor (B4?) = 698 km/h at 3.5 km / 640 km/h at SL.
4: Sonder Notleistung mit ladedruck erhöhung m. MW-50 (B4) = 692 km/h at 5.4 km / 605 km/h at SL.
5: Steig u. Kampfleistung (B4) = 667 km/h at 6.6 km / 550 km/h at SL._




*5.7.1944*; Climb rate at fully loaded weight _without_ ETC-504: (D-9 prop)
_Notleistung m. MW-50, 2100 PS (Sonder Notleistung @ 3,250 RPM) = 22.5 m/s.
Mit erhöhtem ladedruck, 1900 PS (Increased boost at Start u. Notleistung @ 3,250 RPM) = 18.7 m/s.
Start u. Notleistung, 1750 PS = 17.5 m/s._





*1.10.1944*; Dora-9 -12 (F engine) max speed and climb rate at full throttle height, _without_ ETC-504: (D-9 prop wheel doors)
_Dora-9 Max speed = 702 km/h at 5.7 km / 612 km/h at SL.
Dora-9 Climb rate = 18.5 m/s at 4.8 km.
Dora-9 Time to climb 10 km (32,800 ft) = 12.5 min. 
Dora-12 Max speed = 738 km/h at 11.6 km / 608 km/h at SL.
Dora-12 Climb rate = 8.2 m/s at 11.2 km.
Dora-12 Time to climb 10 km (32,800 ft) = 10.9 min._





*3.1.1945*; FW-190 Ta 152 max speeds at fully loaded weight _without_ ETC-504: (1900 PS Basis with wheel doors)
_Dora-9 (A), 2.02 ata = 695 km/h at 5.4 km / 621 km/h at SL.
Dora-12 (F), 1.84 ata = 725 km/h at 9.7 km / 607 km/h at SL.
Dora-12 (EB), 1.84 ata = 770 + km/h at 9.6 km / 613 km/h at SL._




Note: 2.02 ata was probably never used operationally by the Dora.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 5, 2006)

Soren said:


> *davparlr*,
> 
> The chart you posted is a calculated one made in September 1944, and as evident they were VERY over-positive about suspected performance !



You mean the chart that Jank posted. The only chart I posted was a P-51B flight test chart. Which, by the way, is only one of many available, all with a tail numbers. The deviations of the chart you're talking about and the flight test data are disturbing and don't conform to typical engineering charts to performance.



> The charts I posted are based on real test-flights with a clean aircraft conducted in october 1946.



The charts you posted are Fw corporate charts that don't seem to specifically indicate that they contain flight test data, no tail number identified, no pilot identified, no discrete points noted. Do you have documentation that indicates these are really flight test results or or they engineering data. I must admit that the charts were fuzzy and I have to use a translator program.



> And forget about wing-loading davparlr, cause the P-51 used a laminar flow wing design (Root = NACA 66-( 1.8 )15.5 Tip = NACA 66-( 1.8 )12 ) which in turn didn't produce nearly as much lift pr. area as a conventional wing design esp. in tight turns - A Laminar flow wing will stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing.
> 
> Note: The effects a laminar flow wing has on turn performance in particular can be seen in the AFDU comparison between the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest.



I was just pushing one of your old buttons on wingloading. I concede that the Fw-190 family were great roll rate and turning aircraft and the P-51 family had its manuevering points but I don't think you would want to fight a Fw-190 in a horizontal dogfight.



> Now about FW-190 Dora performance, I'm going to make this as clear as possible this time (For the millionth time ! )
> 
> Based on test-flights;



Flight test??

Okay, I used your data for the Fw-190D-9, your supplied chart for the P-51H, and my charts for the P-51B (1944) to generate the following chart:


Fw-190D-9	P-51H P-51B (1944)
Test Weight	9413 lbs (4270kg)	9544 (4329)	9680 (4472)
Empty Weight	7694 (3490)	6585 (2987)	6985 (3168)
Delta Weight	1719 (780)	2959 (1342)	2695 (1222)
Speed Max SL	380mph (612km/h)	400 (644)	371 (597)
Speed Max 436mph (702km/h)	453 (729)	442 (711) 
Climb rate SL	4440 ft/min 4680 4350
Climb rate 16kft 3660 ft/min	3680 (18.7)	3580 (18.2)
climb to 10km	12.5 minutes	10 12.8
climb to 6km	5.4 4 6.4
Ceiling* 39k 41k 42k

Ceiling is not from flight test, but rather researched data.

I hope the chart works out. I have difficulties with charts. Please accept my appologies if it does not

Note that he tested weight over empty weight for the P-51H was over 2000 lbs more than the Fw-190D and the P-51B was carrying more than 1200 more. Imagine how the Fw-190Ds performance data would be impacted if it carried the same load weight.

This data shows what I said orginally.

The P-51H is faster at sea level and altitude, better climbing (and also has better power to weight ratio) and better ceiling. All of this while carrying 2000lb of bombs or fuel? I'll concede the turn. In fact it looks to me that the P-51B (1944 version) is quite comparable to the Fw-190D-9, especially at equivalent weight (although it doesn't have the firepower-perhaps balancing the weight difference with with a couple more 50 cals would work).

Using the data you supplied, I just don't see your justification to the superority of the Fw-190D-9 over the P-51H nor even more than slightly superior to the P-51B (1944 version).

So you still haven't convinced me with data. More attacks on the data?


----------



## davparlr (Oct 5, 2006)

Sorry about the doggone chart


----------



## Soren (Oct 5, 2006)

davparlr said:


> You mean the chart that Jank posted.The only chart I posted was a P-51B flight test chart. Which, by the way, is only one of many available, all with a tail numbers.



Whoops ! Sorry about that mate, I mistook that post as yours  



> The deviations of the chart you're talking about and the flight test data are disturbing and don't conform to typical engineering charts to performance.



Err, hows that ?



> The charts you posted are Fw corporate charts that don't seem to specifically indicate that they contain flight test data, no tail number identified, no pilot identified, no discrete points noted. Do you have documentation that indicates these are really flight test results or or they engineering data. I must admit that the charts were fuzzy and I have to use a translator program.



I was actually talking about the P-51H charts.

All FW's charts are based on test-flights, and therefore they are never more than 4% off, that was the criteria at FW. 



> Okay, I used your data for the Fw-190D-9, your supplied chart for the P-51H, and my charts for the P-51B (1944) to generate the following chart:
> 
> 
> Fw-190D-9	P-51H P-51B (1944)
> ...



davparlr, firstly how many P-51H's are there flying around today ?? And secondly lets take a look at what I said: "_Nope, it wouldn't, and esp. not if my Dora's got GM-1, a D-12 prop and wheel doors, cause then I'd smoke any P-51 in a heartbeat._ "

If you want it to be fair why not compare the P-51H to the Dora-12 (EB) ?

The Dora-12 (EB) will do approx. 25 m/s at SL, reach 10 km in approx. 9 min and hit 770+ km/h at 9.6 km.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 5, 2006)

Soren said:


> Whoops ! Sorry about that mate, I mistook that post as yours



No sweat.



> Err, hows that ?



Engineering data should be similar as you reported on FW requirements. Normally you can expect errors but these are mitigated by comparing to flight test points (4% is reasonable, 7 or more is inexcusable). The seller would quickly lose favor with the buyer for that big an error and charges made. Of course during a war many things are overlooked. 



> I was actually talking about the P-51H charts.
> 
> All FW's charts are based on test-flights, and therefore they are never more than 4% off, that was the criteria at FW.



The data was reasonable 





> davparlr, firstly how many P-51H's are there flying around today ?? And secondly lets take a look at what I said: "_Nope, it wouldn't, and esp. not if my Dora's got GM-1, a D-12 prop and wheel doors, cause then I'd smoke any P-51 in a heartbeat._ "



Well, the H is not the definitive P-51 and there weren't nearly as many made or parts available. Everybody wants the D. Note that you never see a B flying around which performs better than the D when it is using the more potent fuel.




> If you want it to be fair why not compare the P-51H to the Dora-12 (EB) ?
> 
> The Dora-12 (EB) will do approx. 25 m/s at SL, reach 10 km in approx. 9 min and hit 770+ km/h at 9.6 km.



Don't have too much data on these planes but the performance you have for them were impressive.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 6, 2006)

Soren said:


> *Adler and Erich,*
> 
> 
> *davparlr,*
> ...




As an engineer, what has been bothering me is why the P-51H engineering charts deviated so greatly from test data (482 mph (776 kmh) to 453 mph (729 kmh). These guys were pros and would be unlikely to make such a large error. I think the deviation (identified on another site) is that the engineering charts reflect a clean aircraft (no racks) and the flight test were done with fuel and bomb racks attached. Flight test data on P-51Bs shows that max speed with racks was 431 mph and without racks, 444 mph. Therefore you can expect a greater impact at higher speed (I believe drag increases by the square of the speed), so it is reasonable to believe that the impact to the P-51H would be in the 15 mph range. This would raise the P-51H's top speed to 468 mph in test. This would bring the error to 3%, add in the typical engineering/marketing optimisim, and the engineering value makes sense.


----------



## Henk (Oct 6, 2006)

I forgot I would also love a Dornier Do 335. Great looking aircraft and would love to fly one.


----------



## Soren (Oct 6, 2006)

davparlr, 

I have to agree its quite a blunder, but apperantly the guys at North American screwed that calculation up pretty bad cause it was for a clean aircraft. 

Here's how their calculations looked later on in 1945 after some realizations had been made; 
471 mph, thats a 16 mph drop in speed since the previous calculation:


----------



## davparlr (Oct 6, 2006)

Soren said:


> davparlr,
> 
> I have to agree its quite a blunder, but apperantly the guys at North American screwed that calculation up pretty bad cause it was for a clean aircraft.
> 
> ...



This is not really a blunder. They claimed that a clean P-51H would do 487 mph clean. Based on the actual flight test data presented with racks (453 mph), 471 mph is about what I would have expected the P-51H to test at clean (I calculated 468). This is a reasonable error: 487-471=16 mph, or about 3% error, well within engineering error and would have also been found acceptable by FW. Like I said, engineering and marketing optimism always show better than actual performance (After 29 years of aircraft engineering, I can attest that if you do not use high risk high performance numbers and low cost, you will lose the contract!)

487 mph as a top speed for the P-51H is wide spread even by my reference book which has been very dependable. This chart is the only place I have seen that number officially. I would have never used engineering data as bonafide data point (I believe I flagged that when I first saw that chart, but, because of all the other references, I thought that they would certainly be based on actual flight test data). My feelings are, that in clean combat form, around 467-475 mph is the max speed for the P-51H. With racks, 447-455 mph.

However, this issue may apply to the data you have presented. If they are within 4%, you can see the impact. It dosen't seem to be actual flight test data (maybe with flight test input, just like the P-51H charts). 

Also, like the Ta-152H, and the Fw-190D-9,11, the P-51H had great performance for a propeller power aircraft. All of these planes were at the peak of their design but were being overshadowed by the future, e.g., Me-262, P-80, Meteor, etc.


----------



## pasoleati (Oct 6, 2006)

My take would be either the Boeing SeaRanger or the B&V 238. I´d build a moving home in them!


----------



## Soren (Oct 9, 2006)

> This is a reasonable error: 487-471=16 mph, or about 3% error, well within engineering error and would have also been found acceptable by FW.



davparlr, its a rather big error when you consider its from calculation to calculation - FW didn't accept such error's.


----------



## Henk (Oct 9, 2006)

He he he........ Soren you loved to point that out.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 9, 2006)

Soren said:


> davparlr, its a rather big error when you consider its from calculation to calculation - FW didn't accept such error's.



What!! The only way we can calculate error, or to judge error, is to compare the calculated data to tested data in an equal situation, right? Well, the calculated data was made with no racks. There was no test data I could find that was performed with no racks so one to one comparison was impossible and error could not be determined or judged gross. To make errror analysis on one set of data that included no racks against those with racks would be incorrect and irresponsible. In order to fill in the unknown data, I looked for similar test on similar aircraft. I found that there was test performed on the P-51B with both racks and no racks. With an assumption that the racks were of similar design and impact to the P-51H, I calculated the corrected flight test point with no racks. Yes, this is a calculation. Yes, I am making a error analysis of calculated data against data I have calculated. But, the calculated data I used is based on solid engineering practice and flight test data. This is the best we have to make a judgment. You seem to want to make error analysis of a no rack performance against a flight test with racks. Would you judge error of calculated data with water injection with a flight test with no injection. At least I am saying that, by my calculations, this is within normal values. You say it is gross with no equal comparison capablity, and that would be irresponsible engineering evaluation. I hope you and Henk understand what I have just said.


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 10, 2006)

109F, 190A and 190 D-9, Me 262, Ju 87; Re 2005; Fiat G.55; Macchi 200 and 205; Fiat Cr 42; 
Hawker Hurricane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2006)

Gentlemen, gentlemen, you all have it wrong - PBY all the way and for obvious reasons....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2006)

Like I said FBJ, Im with you! Ill take right seat!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2006)




----------



## davparlr (Oct 11, 2006)

There's plenty of room for more, or would you perfer to have a plane load of the feminine type?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2006)

Feminine, but we'll make a few exceptions for a few friends...


----------



## MacArther (Oct 11, 2006)

Sign me up!! I can be one of the waist gunners, and double as a negotiator in case the natives are not friendly.


----------



## Bf109_g (Oct 11, 2006)

B.Mk.III Avro Lancaster!


----------



## Henk (Oct 11, 2006)

Would love to be one of those friends.


----------



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

> B.Mk.



it's one or the other, you can't have both, that's just greedy


----------



## davparlr (Oct 12, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Gentlemen, gentlemen, you all have it wrong - PBY all the way and for obvious reasons....



The PBY would certainly fly forever, the only problem is, it takes forever to get anywhere. I suspect that there are few that ran into a slight headwind and are still trying to get back from their patrol in Pacific, luckily, they still have quarter tank of fuel left.

I always thought a Grumman Goose would be a fun aircraft to have. The PBY would be best in the Pacific, but the Goose would be great in the Caribbean although you would have to be more selective with your pax (an advantage?). And it is faster an looks a whole lot better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2006)

Agree - I guess between the two you have to decide how big of a party you want to have...


----------



## Henk (Oct 12, 2006)

Hello ladys.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

If I were rich,it's gotta be the Kikka.I know,it's a Messerschmitt(a good one),but it's still Japanese.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)

I'm assuming for no purpose other than burning up the sky. Sure as hell has no realworld utility.


----------



## Heinz (Mar 11, 2007)

Wow what a thought.

I'm thinking Spitfire Mk IIa, MkIX and a Gustav.

However with all that money Id probably start making spare parts and even replica planes to keep em flying longer and in more numbers.


----------



## Treize (Mar 11, 2007)

PBY-6A, P-40E, P-51B, A-20, Bf-109G6...

Too many to pick one.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 12, 2007)

Okay then.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 12, 2007)

I would like a Seafire- the intended naval version of the Spitfire plus my own private carrier to carry it if I was that rich. Oh, and a Bf-109T and a Sea Hurricane. And a Japanese Zero for good measure. All carrier planes but that would make a good demonstration for WWII airshows...


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 12, 2007)

I like it. Now that's a plan.


----------



## Treize (Mar 12, 2007)

Ok, if you want specifics, either a P-51B (with birdcage, not Malcom Hood) in Duane Beesons Olive Drab/Gray "Bee", or Ralph Hofers OD upper/bare metal Malcom-Hood equipped "Salem Representative" with D-Day stripes.

Rest were more for novelty/utility, but the B-Pony is the dream one for me


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 12, 2007)

Oh, and a Me-323 for transporting the planes in crates. Don't want to ruin them with too many hours now...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I'm assuming for no purpose other than burning up the sky. Sure as hell has no realworld utility.



I thought he would say Zero because "its the best plane ever DEAL WITH IT!!!"


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 12, 2007)

I admit I was baiting him.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 12, 2007)

PBY-5A Catalina
P-51D Mustang
P-47N Thunderbolt
P-38L Lightning
F4U-1A Corsair
Douglas Skyraider AD-6
Noorduyn Norseman
Grumman Goose
FW 190D
TA 152H-1
Bf 109G-6
He-219
P-61
Ar-234
HO-229 (sooo cool and all these years ahead with "stealth").
Dornier Do 24
Dornier DO 217M, K and the nightfighters.
Junkers Ju 88, the nightfighters and the speed S version.
Me 110-G
B-29
Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate "Frank"
LA-5
LA-7
Yak-9

I know, my own personal air force...... *laughs* Just inspired watching one of those programs earlier with rich guys and ALL their WWII and later tanks.
I mean, they MUST be more expensive than a WWII fighter, right?


----------



## twoeagles (Mar 12, 2007)

*Martin Mariner*. I like to travel in style. Spend time in the South Pacific
scouting wrecks.


----------



## trackend (Mar 12, 2007)

Shorts Sunderland with all the long haul civi trimmings


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 12, 2007)

And now we've come full circle.


----------



## Kurfürst (Mar 12, 2007)

I'd probably buy that G-10 stored in some U.S. museum, forgot which one.. I believe they note it's belonged to some German unit, but a local 109-researcher guy made some research unto it and found it probably belonged to the Hungarian 101 Puma regiment, so it's indeed of great historical/emotional value here, even if my personal favourite is the 109K.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2007)

Well not as glamourous but a handy beast a Norseman UC 64 on floats but useful in going to one of this provinces 1,000,000 lakes for fishing , hunting get away weekends you name it was the land rover of WW2 utility aircraft


----------



## renrich (Mar 12, 2007)

I beleve there is a Short Sunderland civi a/c in a museum in Central Florida. Went through it and was amazed at how small it felt. They also had a B17 we went through and it was even less roomy. Interesting story about surplus WW2 a/c which may or may not be true. Rich Texas oilman during the late 50s had a wife that he would have liked to have been divorced from but knew he would be picked like a chicken by her attys. She was a pilot and evinced a desire for a Corsair. He, knowing that the Corsair could be a handful sometimes bought her one and let nature take it's course. Maybe she forgot to roll in 6 degrees right rudder and 6 degrees down right aileron on landing and takeoff, but he did not need to get a divorce.


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 13, 2007)

I would choose the Hawker Typhoon. Go zooming over the heads of my school mates at low level, giving them a very rude finger signal from the cockpit window.
That and the chin scoop just makes it the sexiest aircraft i have ever seen...thats right i find planes sexually attractive


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 13, 2007)

...not in a gay way or anything


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 13, 2007)

...Oh please keep going. Need a shovel?


----------



## Civettone (Mar 13, 2007)

Any German aircraft would be ok.

But otherwise, I would like to have the Renard R-38.

Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 13, 2007)

Looks like a Yak-3 wannabe.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 13, 2007)

After a jaunt in the countryside in my bugatti atlantique. I would then take out its stablemate for a quick spin......

Ok didn't make WWII as a fighter. But some other notables that would be in my collection. Spit XII pointed tips PRU Blue, Fw 152 H C. Fw 200 Condor(in danish airline colours) for those transatlantic party flights and an Pietenpol Air Camper(i know not WWII either) for the lawn parties.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 13, 2007)

A B-36 Peacemaker designed as an inflight entertainment plane for parties etc. in the air. Not exactly WWII but it was almost ready for WWII. Would have been coming on line in 1945-1946 for the Olympic Campaign (Invasion of Japan).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Would have been coming on line in 1945-1946 for the Olympic Campaign (Invasion of Japan).


There were no B-36s "coming down the production line in 1945" - the XB-36's first flight was in August 1946...


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 14, 2007)

Non-stop service from LA to Boston in a mind boggling 15hours. Well that is unless you had to divert due to engine fire.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 14, 2007)

I wouldn't turn my back on Boeing 377 Stratocruiser or a Lockheed Constellation either.....a wee bit later than WWII, but still. YUMMY!


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 14, 2007)

There we go. Now your talkin'.


----------



## Glider (Mar 15, 2007)

Give me a Mossie. Fast enough to have some fun, range sufficient to go almost anywhere and plenty of space for the extras that make life so much more enjoyable.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 16, 2007)

Its difficult to keep my choices down to a few - but 
my choices would be, 

Vickers Wellington - Good range as well as a rare warbird.

Short Stirling - Sitting so high off the ground in the cockpit before you've even started the engines would give the impression you're flying already!

Whitley - the nose down attitude of the aircraft must have been a strange feeling on landing - (none left except at the bottom of the sea)

Tempest Mk V - Purely a speed, sound looks thing - mean beast!!

Lancaster B Mk III for long range, rarety always a head turner.

Spitfire Mk Ia another rare warbird a thing of beauty.

Hurricane Mk I (same as above)

Mosquito NF - good to blast away with 20mm cannons!!

Dornier Do17 (None left so it would be another rare bird).

FW190D9 (similar to the tempest)

Junkers JU52 - rugged transporter which pioneered many of the air routes still used today.


----------



## fire-ball (Mar 16, 2007)

I would chose the TI-51 Russian arcraft rarely used due to major losses but it served in the spanish civil war under the republic, the planes 
losses/victories = 1/11 which was pretty good. Or i would chose the kettle 5a
you would have never herd of it because it never went into action it was the first jet plane which was being devoloped in America during the war


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 17, 2007)

A wee bit off the mark here, but still "birds of prey".....
Albatros D.III, D.V and D.Va
Fokker Dr I
Fokker D. VII
Sopwith Camel
SE. 5A
Neiuport 17
Spad VII and XIII

For the weekends when you want to smell and feel the air in your hair... *laughs*


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 17, 2007)

P-47N - lots of play value, with a second seat so I could make someone vomit (in their mask - have to add one!)
Heinkel He 277 (?) the one with the engines in separate nacelles, painted as warbird, but party-barge inside
P-61 Black Widow
F7F Tigercat
P-40C - stationed with the Flying Tigers in the early '00s, but don't like the longer E F models
The Spruce Goose - saw it in '87 in San Diego - what an awesome bird...
Dornier Do 217N (?) nightfighter
And more as well - that's just off the top of my head...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 17, 2007)

Concorde247 said:


> Dornier Do17 (None left so it would be another rare bird).



I agree. I really wish there was a Do 17 still around. Here in Germany there is a nose section of one in a museum along with the world only surviving Fw 200 Condor that is currently be restored for display in the museum in Berlin.


----------



## Udet (Mar 17, 2007)

Did not expect this thread to become so fruitful...

I´ll keep it simple, if had the $ to do it, i would have the entire Luftwaffe coming back to life.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 17, 2007)

Of course my fellow forumites..... to go with all my fighters, bombers, fighterbombers etc. I'd have my own private shooting and fighting range to have fun on. With everything from repair, storage, facilities to fabricate new parts etc. etc.
AND remote controlled targets for target practice, air, sea and ground targets.
You're all welcome to take part of course.....


----------



## MacArther (Mar 18, 2007)

> You're all welcome to take part of course....



I like where this conversation has gone.....but really, do you think your targets would stand up to the awsome might that is the P40-Q?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 18, 2007)

Honestly.....? Nope.


----------



## Soren (Mar 18, 2007)

If I had the $'s I'd emmidiately go buy the only remaining Ta-152H (Below) and restore it completely all the while closely examining each part copying them to produce a new and flyable version.







Such a shame no'one has yet attempted to restore this unique a/c.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2007)

That is a good idea my friend.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 18, 2007)

I vote for that.....


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 18, 2007)

Oh, and a Catalina for those trips to my private island. After all don't really want to clutter it up with an airfield, do we now? That is what I would like. Alas though I doubt it would happen.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 19, 2007)

Soren said:


> If I had the $'s I'd emmidiately go buy the only remaining Ta-152H (Below) and restore it completely all the while closely examining each part copying them to produce a new and flyable version.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe the people that build those NEW 262's will build a HO-229 OR a Arado 234, eh? Would it be possible to do that? Are the blueprints still around or would they have to copy the parts? Anyone who knows how they did it with the Me's? Wouldn't it be great to see a Horten or a Arado in the air again???   








Say what you want about not seeing anything behind you in a -234, but the view forward....WOW!


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 21, 2007)

Agreed that really would be something. Especially if you could somehow do activated smoke flares to recreate a hit on the Ho-229s...


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 22, 2007)

Referencing the Ar-234:



HealzDevo said:


> Especially if you could somehow do activated smoke flares to recreate a hit on the Ho-229s...



Whiskey Tankgo Foxtrot, Oscar?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 22, 2007)

Would definitely add the same system or something similar as the one they use in ground manouvers. Laser sensitive sensors all over the machines. Depending where you're hit, you'd either start to trail smoke (black or white, all depending how hard you're hit) or be told to land as in "GAME OVER!"
How does that sound folks?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Would definitely add the same system or something similar as the one they use in ground manouvers. Laser sensitive sensors all over the machines. Depending where you're hit, you'd either start to trail smoke (black or white, all depending how hard you're hit) or be told to land as in "GAME OVER!"
> How does that sound folks?



That is not how it works. It is called the MILES system and is the same system that is installed on ground vehicals. We have been using for decades now. We would install them on our aircraft as well. There are sensors all over the aircraft and when we were hit a big yellow light starts blinking and the OC's who are basically refs in another aircraft tell you that you are hit and need to land immediatly. It is actually very innacurate when it comes to aircraft. Last maneuvers we went on, my aircraft was taken out by a guy with a 9mm pistol (which technically is possible) because his MILES laser hit one of my sensors. Upon landing you open a folder that is kept in the cockpit and tells you what kind of damage you have and what kind of casualities you have. There is no smoke trailing behind the aircraft.

The only people that use smoke are at airshows and it is acted out before hand. The pilot has to start the smoke in his own cockpit.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 22, 2007)

So I gotta know, Adler. What was the damage and casualties from your 9mm ordnance hit?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

This is a no **** story okay.

We were coming into the LZ and I saw "an insergent" standing behind a car with a side arm in his hand pointed at us. I opened fire with my M60 from the right side and my blank adapter flies off because I did not tighten it down eneogh (stupid me ) so I can not engage the guy anymore with the Miles Laser on my gun. As we continue to land our light starts flashing, but we continue to take off after dropping off the ground guys. The OC's in the Huey flying overhead get the call sign mixed up and tell the other Blackhawk that they have been killed and need to land immediatly and we fly home.

So I dont know what our damage was. I was happy though because the guys on the other aircraft had to evade capture and it was Febraury in Germany in the snow and very cold.

It all got straightened out in the end and the other crew was pretty pissed off.


----------



## bigZ (Mar 22, 2007)

Soren said:


> If I had the $'s I'd emmidiately go buy the only remaining Ta-152H (Below) and restore it completely all the while closely examining each part copying them to produce a new and flyable version.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hands off. This ones mine!!!

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/schematics/focke-wulf-152h-dwg-6993.html


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This is a no **** story okay.
> 
> We were coming into the LZ and I saw "an insergent" standing behind a car with a side arm in his hand pointed at us. I opened fire with my M60 from the right side and my blank adapter flies off because I did not tighten it down eneogh (stupid me ) so I can not engage the guy anymore with the Miles Laser on my gun. As we continue to land our light starts flashing, but we continue to take off after dropping off the ground guys. The OC's in the Huey flying overhead get the call sign mixed up and tell the other Blackhawk that they have been killed and need to land immediatly and we fly home.
> 
> ...




Now that's a great story.


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> ...my blank adapter flies off because I did not tighten it down eneogh (stupid me ) so I can not engage the guy anymore with the Miles Laser on my gun...



If you tap your finger on the port next to the laser the air pressure on the sensor will trigger the laser... You don't need to fire the weapon. Kind of awkward to use, but it works...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2007)

Bullockracing said:


> If you tap your finger on the port next to the laser the air pressure on the sensor will trigger the laser... You don't need to fire the weapon. Kind of awkward to use, but it works...



Yeah we knew that. We would run around in the tents or barracks at night and tap the laser and make peoples alarms go off just to irritate them. It was funny unless everyone was trying to get some sleep. 

The problem is you can not fire without the blank adaptor because not eneogh gas pushes the bolt back with Blanks so then the bolt stays foward. Also it is pretty hard to tap the laser in the wind when you are flying in a helicopter and it is Febraury in Germany. Pretty Damn Cold!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 24, 2007)

Dont like the Miles System either... Typical story there Adler, heard it before and will most likely hear it again....

Heres some info on the Miles system... Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES2000)

Whats the next step up??? The new MILES XXI systems force-on-force training equipment promises to improve weapon fidelity, reduce the logistics burden and provide essential after action reviews. These features are not available on the current basic MILES system...

The ability to support an after-action review is an essential feature of the MILES XXI training system and is possible because all player activity is recorded during an exercise.

The army developed the family of MILES devices (Basic MILES) in the late '70s and early '80s using state-of-the-art technology. Basic MILES is the primary training device for force-on-force training at army home stations. However, today's training battlefield requires an improved performance level Basic MILES cannot meet. Further, Basic MILES systems have reached the end of their useful economic life cycle. As a result the US army has reassessed its acquisition alternatives.

Soldiers use Basic MILES devices primarily during force-on-force exercises to simulate the firing and effects of actual weapons systems. These weapons systems include the M1 Abrams tank, Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, M113 armoured personnel carrier, wheeled vehicles and other non-shooting targets. Additionally, Basic MILES simulations address anti-armour weapons, machine guns, rifles and other ancillary items, such as a controller gun, within the programme. However, existing Basic MILES technology does not support the level of fidelity army commanders and trainers require.

Repair parts required to maintain the Basic MILES inventory are no longer available on the open market. Expensive reverse engineering of Basic MILES components is a common support practice. Basic MILES fails to record any event data for use in after-action reviews, a major handicap in providing soldiers with feedback.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2007)

Yeap I never liked the system. It was just a bunch more **** that I was forced to carry around.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 24, 2007)

Why not go back to "bang...bang...you're dead"?  Much cheaper, no extra (censored) to carry around, no chance of malfunction etc.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2007)

Because while you were yelling Banga Banga Banga! the other guy would not "die" instead as he got close to you, he would yell out Tanka, Tanka, Tanka...!


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 25, 2007)

DARN!


----------



## BAGTIC (Mar 30, 2007)

Northrop N-3PB torpedo bomber.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 30, 2007)

Bagtic, that's an interesting one! Why that one? Because it was the fastest floatplane at the time?

I also like it. Here's the story of the only remaining N-3PB:
_On April 21, 1943, N-3PB No. 320 -"U", took off from Budareiry to Reykjavik. The pilot onboard was Wsewolod Bulukin and the wireless operator was Leif Rustad. On route to Reykjavik, the crew encountered heavy snow-showers. They were forced to land on the glacier river Thjorsa. The aircraft was wrecked during the landing. Fortunately, both crew members swam ashore to safety, and were able to get back to their squadron within a few days. Meanwhile, back in the river, the N-3PB sank down into mud and water.

Thirty six years later, N-3PB No. 320 was successfully salvaged from the Thjorsa river in Iceland. This was accomplished through a joint effort of Icelandic, Norwegian, British and American volunteers. In November 1979, the wreck was flown to the Northrop Aircraft Division plant at Hawthorne, California to be fully restored. A year later, on November 10th, 1980, the only remaining example of the Northrop N-3PB was proudly rolled out at the Northrop Aircraft Division plant, following a complete restoration._






:civ


----------



## MacArther (Mar 30, 2007)

Actually, I'll agree with him. That is a lovely float plane!!! Besides what I already put down, I think I might take a Mk1 Hurricane and a Spitfire Mk1. I would start a whole production facility just to make them if I could not buy them. Any one interested in my future "old-style plane production facility"?


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2007)

Never heard of the Northrop aircraft. Good post.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 30, 2007)

Even if we're talking WWII birds here and I've already sneaked in a few WWI as well..... But DARN! I'd love to buy a F-86 Sabre, F-8 Crusader, F-104 Starfighter..... and a MIG-21. Would you blame me???


----------



## Maharg (May 5, 2007)

Spitfire Mk.IX. A beautiful aircraft and one of the best spits.


----------



## ndicki (May 5, 2007)

I think having a single seater is a bit like masturbation. Alone. I'd want some huge crate like a Lanc or a Halibag I could cart all my mates round in too, so we could all have a good time!

So being reasonable, and unable to separate the RAF from their last Lanc, I'll have a Mitchell.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2007)

F**K! Those machines that I can't steal.....I mean buy! I'd build them new again, since I have the money.... A new B-29 with zero hours...yuuummmm!


----------



## Jank (May 5, 2007)

"_I think having a single seater is a bit like masturbation. Alone. I'd want some huge crate like a Lanc or a Halibag I could cart all my mates round in too, so we could all have a good time!_"

And having a huge one, a multi-seater with different positions for a "good time" with one's mates sounds a bit like a gay orgy.

I'm just saying.
.
.
.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2007)

Eeeeww !! 

Yachhh !!

Phuweee !!


----------



## Negative Creep (May 5, 2007)

I'd have a Beaufighter. Not only are the awesome looking planes, they are much rarer and less well known than a Spitfire or Mustang (admittedly, I would miss out on the Merlin engine note). Would have to have rockets fitted, and a shark's mouth too.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2007)

Jank said:


> "_I think having a single seater is a bit like masturbation. Alone. I'd want some huge crate like a Lanc or a Halibag I could cart all my mates round in too, so we could all have a good time!_"
> 
> And having a huge one, a multi-seater with different positions for a "good time" with one's mates sounds a bit like a gay orgy.
> 
> ...



I pretend that I didn't read that.... Myself, I'll only have a female crew. 



Negative Creep said:


> I'd have a Beaufighter. Not only are the awesome looking planes, they are much rarer and less well known than a Spitfire or Mustang (admittedly, I would miss out on the Merlin engine note). Would have to have rockets fitted, and a shark's mouth too.



I can't even remember seeing a Beaufighter with a shark mouth...sounds cool though.


----------



## Negative Creep (May 5, 2007)

I've never seen a Beau with a shark's mouth (seem pretty rare in the RAF bar the Kittyhawk), but then I'd be a billionaire tyrant, able to do what I want


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 6, 2007)

Would have to do with a large land/sea plane.

Perhaps a Sunderland or somthing similar. I like the PBY but if I were that rich I would want something with more room in it.

It would have to be big enough to live out of. It will need space for a full a kitchen, bedroom, living area, office, as well as storge area for sporting equipment.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2007)

Maybe one of those classic Pan Am clippers?


----------



## trackend (May 6, 2007)

C47 and tour the world


----------



## jonsidneyb (May 6, 2007)

I didn't think the Pan AM Clippers could land on land.

I am thinking for a rich guy an anphibian would be the ultimate RV or even a traveling home.

You could go anyplace where the water is deep enough or a suitable runway and it could be big enough to live in.

Might be hard for the post man to find you for your mail.


----------



## tpikdave (May 7, 2007)

FW190A-8 with an A6m5 Zero to learn in.


----------



## Desert Fox (May 12, 2007)

It may have already been mentioned, but also I'd like a Dornier Do X flying boat. The Dornier Do X was the largest, heaviest and most powerful flying boat in the world when it was produced by Dornier in 1929.


----------



## Njaco (May 13, 2007)

Man, that was a mansion with wings! I'd pick that along with a Fw 200 Condor. I thought the plane had classic lines and was gorgeous looking. Too bad about its spine.

For something smaller, I'd choose the BV 141. Love to go zipping around with that contraption.


----------



## Marcel (May 13, 2007)

Desert Fox said:


> It may have already been mentioned, but also I'd like a Dornier Do X flying boat. The Dornier Do X was the largest, heaviest and most powerful flying boat in the world when it was produced by Dornier in 1929.



It also had a ceiling of only 500 m, so it was hardly a plane at all


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (May 13, 2007)

Hm. Buying that hermaphrodite B-17/24 thing would be fun.

Can't find a pic of it, but its pretty much a B-24 with a B-17 nose.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 13, 2007)

Marcel said:


> It also had a ceiling of only 500 m, so it was hardly a plane at all



You're joking?!


----------



## Marcel (May 14, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> You're joking?!



No, really, it's the ceiling it had.


----------



## Gnomey (May 14, 2007)

Marcel said:


> No, really, it's the ceiling it had.



Yep it is true...

General characteristics

* Crew: 10-14
* Capacity: 66-100 passengers
* Length: 41 m (134 ft 2 in)
* Wingspan: 48 m (157 ft 5 in)
* Height: 10 m (33 ft)
* Wing area: 450 m² (4,844 ft²)
* Empty weight: 28,250 kg (62,280 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 56,000 kg (123,460 lb)
* Powerplant: 12× Curtiss Conqueror water-cooled 12-cylinder inline, 455 kW (610 hp) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 211 km/h (131 mph)
* Cruise speed: 175 km/h (109 mph)
* Range: 1,700 km (1,056 miles)
* Service ceiling: 500 m (1,650 ft)


Dornier Do X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lucky13 (May 14, 2007)

Underpowered I guess....


----------



## Marcel (May 18, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Underpowered I guess....



Yeah, it must be with only 12 enignes 

LOL


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 18, 2007)

I would buy either a B-29


Or The "Spruce Goose" 

I didnt quite make it into WWII but was intended to so i think it counts


----------



## tpikdave (May 19, 2007)

Yes, The Spruce Goose would give you enough room to park a motorhome and a Honda and have room left over for a two story house inside. I am going to be driving right by it east of McMinnville Or. on May23 on my way to the Vets Hospital in Portland.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 19, 2007)

Thats pretty cool,


I should go see next time i visit the states


----------



## tpikdave (May 19, 2007)

Its in the Evergreen Aviation Museum just outside of Mc Minnville. I saw it go by on two separate barges towed by big seagoing tugs. Right from my deck. 

Aircraft - Featured Exhibit

The BF109G Gustav is magnificent. Perfect. An 11million dollar restoral and it flies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2007)

Njaco said:


> Man, that was a mansion with wings! I'd pick that along with a Fw 200 Condor. I thought the plane had classic lines and was gorgeous looking. Too bad about its spine.
> 
> For something smaller, I'd choose the BV 141. Love to go zipping around with that contraption.



Take a Dornier Do 24. Very beautiful plane.


----------



## Ju290 (May 21, 2007)

I would buy a B-17G because it's tough. A B-24 for those long flights. A B-29 to fly in comfort. Nothing but bombers for me. Maybe a P-38.


----------



## tpikdave (May 21, 2007)

Dornier Do 24, Hey, I looked that up. That is really a beautiful seaplane.


----------



## Joe2 (May 22, 2007)

JU-88. I don't know why, I like that plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2007)

tpikdave said:


> Dornier Do 24, Hey, I looked that up. That is really a beautiful seaplane.



There is one restored and flying around today.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 22, 2007)

Is it?! Where?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2007)

Here is a pic. It is all over the place, it flys the circuit and collects money for charities. It is over here quite a bit in Germany and lands at the Bodensee all the time.


----------



## Joe2 (May 22, 2007)

OK. I change my mind. THAT ONE!


----------



## Lucky13 (May 22, 2007)

I've always loved the PBY Catalina but the Dornier Do 24 is a lovely looking lassie indeed. 

Much appreciated Adler!


----------



## tpikdave (May 22, 2007)

The engines and tail assembly are way high. Must be for clearance in high seas. I once saw a Grumman Goose land and take off way out on Lake mead. It was almost dreamlike. We were out with an USAF Senior Master Sgt. and his wife and 8 yr old daughter, aboard his 29' Sea Ray (His wife was a mortgage loan officer) . We saw it was going to land away from shore so we headed for it when it was on its final (we hoped). Sure enough it landed and came to a stop while two good looking gals in bikinis and a guy came out of a hatch on top and proceeded to dive off the wing and go back aboard through the main door (hatch whatever) on the side. Sgt Perkins call over and asked if his daughter could come aboard and they gave her a tour of the plane. It was one of the best days of my life that day. All day on the lake and lunch on board. We even saw some Bighorn sheep on shore close enough for photos. What a day.


----------



## Desert Fox (May 24, 2007)

She's certainly more graceful than the lumbering Dornier Do X


----------



## Saberstrike (May 24, 2007)

F4U Corsair. (For those really ugly days that I would have bad moods)
6 P-51s (Just for fun)
BF-109K4 (To let rip out over Philly.  )
ME-262 Replica (Also to let rip out over Philly  )
And a 1932 Ford Coupe.

...

What? Can't a guy customize it to look like a P-40? Sheesh.  

Oh, and I'd like to have a... Uh lemme see here...

*looks in "The Complete Guide To Fighters And Bombers Of The World"*

Hm...

 

LOCKHEED P-38L LIGHTNING! Painted as my Transformers character Saberstrike.

...

I know. Who would want that many planes? Heh. I'd like a lot of those. 

*ahem*

Sorry. I tend to ramble.


----------



## Matt308 (May 24, 2007)

Rambling is fine. It's the Transformer part the got my attention.


----------



## Concorde247 (May 31, 2007)

I forgot to add the westland whirlwind twin engined fighter to my list, along with the Avro Manchester

Again, the only ones left are somewhere at the bottom of the channel!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 12, 2007)

I know that they're not WWII planes. But, who can say no to those colourful Boeing F4B-4, Curtiss BF2C-2, Curtiss P-12, Boeing P-26 and the Grumman J2F Duck......etc.


----------



## trackend (Jun 12, 2007)

Is'nt it a Duck that Peter O'Tool learns to fly in the movie Murphys War I thought it was a great film sequence


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 12, 2007)

I've seen it....years ago. Not a bad movie.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 11, 2007)

What would you have as a "business jet"? Since I'd go for style, class and pure loveliness I'd have a Lockheed Constellation with a Boeing Stratocruiser as a backup....


----------



## The Basket (Jul 11, 2007)

The Me 163 Komet.

Probably be dead by teatime but what a wild ride!


----------



## RAGMAN (Jul 12, 2007)

I always liked the JU88...that'll be the one i would want.B17 is a close second.post war i would like that canberra bomber...i always liked that plane too.And I am really dreaming,the F15 too.


----------



## lastwarrior (Jul 12, 2007)

I would go for the Spitfire


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 12, 2007)

No brainer for me . . . Lockheed P-38 Lightning, either an F or an L. What I'd really like is the XP-38, but it's in a million pieces, so I guess that's out of the question. 

Second choice (unless I get two choices!), would be an Me-262, either an original (highly unlikely), or one of the repro's from Stormbirds up in Washington state (though I think all five airframes are already spoken for).


----------



## ccheese (Jul 12, 2007)

Hi:

I'm the new kid on the block, so I'll stick my two cents worth in here.

Have you even seen....actually seen a Polikarpov I-153 ? I saw one
in Russia in 1951. Painted all gold with the red stars on it....

Absolutely beautiful. Of course, this is just for tooling around, at
about 275 MPH.

Charles


----------



## T4.H (Jul 13, 2007)

Me109!

Why?
Good Question...
And I know, that I would have realy good chances to crash it, when I just try to start with it.

And how many pilots in the world wouldn't crash with it, when they would try to land?

If I couldn't get a Me109...

a Dornier DO 335 "Pfeil"!!!


----------



## johnbr (Jul 13, 2007)

For me a Miles 20 a Miles 52 a Tempest Mark 1 Piaggio P.119


----------



## wildfrog62 (Dec 23, 2008)

My father flew one and I would love to, just to be in or around one would be a treat, one of these days I will see a real one and not just the models I build


----------



## Vraciu (Dec 24, 2008)

I choose Corsair and P-40 (with shark's teeth). The first to shot down everything what's flying, the second to relax.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Dec 24, 2008)

One of everything thanks


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 24, 2008)

It would definitely be a P-47 Thunderbolt. If I'm a multimillionaire with my own bird I'm flying the biggest and the baddest of the single-engine fighters.


----------



## Glider (Dec 24, 2008)

Have to be the Mossie, plenty of range to go where I want, good payload to carry what I want (and no doubt the shopping my wife would buy), excellent speed to get there quickly, and the general performance to have a lot of fun along the way.
No contest


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 24, 2008)

Glider said:


> Have to be the Mossie, plenty of range to go where I want, good payload to carry what I want (and no doubt the shopping my wife would buy), excellent speed to get there quickly, and the general performance to have a lot of fun along the way.
> No contest


Hahaha, why not a Lancaster then, your wife could buy a boat and you could fly it home.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Dec 24, 2008)

Real easy, the first P-40 B/C or E/K , I could get my hands on! And if I didn't blow enough money , then I would find and rebuild to flying condition a P-61 because it is a shame we don't get to see one of those flying around!


----------



## ralphwiggum (Dec 25, 2008)

I'd love a FW 190 "Sturmbock" with that elongated eagle marking on the sides
2) a Macchi 2002 in the desert camoflage
3) a JU87G Tank killer
4) a B-17G
I'd take theFW and the Stuka to tree top level just to show off!!


----------



## Venganza (Dec 25, 2008)

A Spitfire Mk.XIVE with teardrop canopy. And a nice-looking female mechanic to look after the plane.

Venganza


----------



## Amsel (Dec 25, 2008)

I would get a Zeke fighter because they are so rare.


----------



## wilbur1 (Dec 25, 2008)

UUUmm lets see...
a P51d just freakin bad
a f4u corsair gotta have one if ya wanna keep up with the joneses
a F82 twin mustang.....when u wanna beat the jonses and everything else


----------



## mayfiebl (Dec 29, 2008)

Stuka, Love to see one in person


----------



## beaupower32 (Jan 1, 2009)

Bf-109 K-4, a Beaufighter with the merlin engines, and a P-51D for Sh!t's and giggles!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 2, 2009)

I'd never want a 109. Landing one is as dangerous as the F4U. It's like landing a bicycle.


----------



## Glider (Jan 2, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I'd never want a 109. Landing one is as dangerous as the F4U. It's like landing a bicycle.



Do that all the time in a Glider, its the getting off that can be interesting.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 2, 2009)

Glider said:


> Do that all the time in a Glider, its the getting off that can be interesting.


compare the landing speed on a glider to a 109, just saying.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I'd never want a 109. Landing one is as dangerous as the F4U. It's like landing a bicycle.



I do not think it was as bad as you make it out to be.

1. The landing gear arrangement was less than ideal, but no worse than many fighters. pbfoot actually access to a flying Bf 109 and Spitfire. He went out to the hanger and measured them and the Spitfire was actually wider than the Bf 109's. The toe is what made the 109 bad.

2. Actual statistics were posted on this site (I can not remember the thread) that shows that the Bf 109 had not many more accidents on landing than any other aircraft of WW2.


----------



## slaterat (Jan 2, 2009)

As the 109s gear both cambered out and toed out, it had insipient swing at take off and landing, that is a fact. These issues could be addressed with pilot training.

Anyways I'd pick a Hurricane its pretty unique warbird.

slaterat


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2009)

slaterat said:


> As the 109s gear both cambered out and toed out, it had insipient swing at take off and landing, that is a fact. These issues could be addressed with pilot training.



Agreed, however a pilot who is trained on the aircraft is not going to have much problems with it. As stated it has been discussed at length and was proven that the Bf 109 did not crash on landing in any alarming numbers.


----------



## ratdog (Jan 2, 2009)

a WORKING, FLYING, XB-70 Valkyrie


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jan 2, 2009)

My first pick would have to be the P-47N cause I like'em. Second would be the F-7 Tigercat just for the speed and fun factor. Then for the novelty factor a Do-335. No, they aren't maneuverable, but [email protected] they're fast.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 2, 2009)

The F7 Tigercat is a great answer. What a monster that was.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 2, 2009)

For me

1. Spitfire Mk VIII: arguably regarded as the nicest variants of all to fly.
2. Sea Fury: okay, strictly speaking, it wasn't WWII but I'd have one anyway just for the sheer hotroddy-ness of it.
3. P47-D: if you don't want one of these, you're not really a man... No seriously, there's just something about the chunky muscularity of the Jug that never fails to stir the imagination, esp when it's sitting at dispersal all gunned up.
4. Fw190A: to fly the RAF's wake-up call and know why.
5. Me262A-1A: to fly the USAAF's wake-up call and know why.
6. Do335: largely unsung and for me, desirable owing to it's unusual configuration; a performer in the same class as the P47-M.
7. Me163: Eight minutes but what a ride, as well as seeing what it's like to fly a firework with guns.
8. A6M: early version, to see what it's like to fly a kite with guns.
9. Dewoitine D520: obviously nipped in the bud somewhat early in its development, nevertheless an interesting French design, seemingly a match for the Bf109E, that merits it a place in the collection.
10. P51-D: a great fighter from a company with no real experience of designing fighters. It incorporated alot of novel design features, some of which worked (eg Meredith Effect) and some of which were somewhat overblown (eg Laminar Flow). 
It's got to be in there simply for being able to deliver a first-rate fighter to the Reich's front door and take him on, on more or less equal terms. Range and fightability; two terms in WWII fighter design engineering trade-off that seldom went together for the same aircraft.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 3, 2009)

i would buy the p-51D and a b-29 because those are the ones that helped end the war


----------



## Boss Calamari (Jan 3, 2009)

I'd go build a ju-290 factory if i were rich and make modern versions with jet engines or radials. I'd also buy a Storch,those are tiny and awesome STOL planes. Flying by myself would be boring but if i had fellows like you guys then I'd buy a ki-43 just for shits and giggles to mock dogfight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2009)

fly boy said:


> i would buy the p-51D and a b-29 because those are the ones that helped end the war



So no other aircraft contributed in ending the war?


----------



## Marcel (Jan 3, 2009)

I just thought I would buy a Bf108 Taifun. The experience of the Bf109 in a practical, usable aircraft and according to many a pleasure to fly.


----------



## aflyer (Jan 4, 2009)

If I was a bazillionaire, I'd have at least one of every airplane used, and have someone build whatever was not available to restore. In addition there are a few that are not WW2 that I'd have as well!

In the meantime, I'll keep dreaming, and in no particular order here's my short(ish) first list... just so I can start playing.

Spitfire IX (clipped) for low-level fun
Spitfire PR XIX for high-level fun
L-4 Cub
Lysander
Boeing P-26 "Peashooter" (not WW2, but close enough)
Hawker Fury
Fairey Swordfish
Fiesler Storch
Gloster Gladiator
PBY
Noordyn Norseman UC-64 (on floats)
Westland Lysander
Ju-87
Bucker 133
DH-83 Fox Moth
Tiger Moth
Stearman
Ju-52
Fleet 16 Finch
C-45
C-47
P-40 
P-38 (for my wife)
F4U Corsair (also for my wife)
Lancaster (for my friends at 419 Squadron Cold Lake AB)

Cheers
Kerry

Its toooooo hard to stop at one... (whines and stomps foot)... waaaa!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 5, 2009)

I'd definitely go with a modified two-seat P-47 with the armor pulled out to lighten it.


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Jan 5, 2009)

If I were as filthy rich as You say, I would acquire myself the following:

Yak-3, La-7, Spitfire ( any of the types ), Fw-190A8, Me-262 and Bf-109D6

But what I would really like to try is to build a functional, flyable Ikarus Ik-3.


----------



## olbrat (Jan 5, 2009)

I think a PBY would be nice to fly to the Carribean or, considering its range, any place else for that matter, and go fishing or diving out of the blisters.


----------



## Corsair82pilot (Jan 13, 2009)

F4U-1A


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 13, 2009)

Corsair82pilot said:


> F4U-1A
> 
> View attachment 80631



Um, don't you almost have one of those already? But, yeah, a real one would be cool, too . . . 

I'd want a two-seat Do 335 with a couple of supercharged DB603's installed.

P.S Saw this a few months ago at an airshow, though you'd enjoy it:


----------



## AMCKen (Jan 22, 2009)

de Havilland Hornet, Hawker Typhoon, Northrop Blackwidow, Spitfire (Griffon), 
Sabre Fury, M.B.5, Spiteful XV, 
Several would have to be built from scratch...


----------

