# Best possible fighter



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

ok so you can make you dream WWII single engined fighter by taking different aspects of different planes, the only rules are as we're talking about single engined fighters all aspects must be taken from singled fighters and no more than two aspects from each plane, i realise that's a bit confusing so observe:-

manouverability- A6M5 Zero
Range- A6M5 zero
Durability- P-47D thunderbolt
Ease of repair and manufacture- Hawker Hurricane
Speed- Do-335 Pfiel
armourment- Fw-190
payload- stuka 
ceiling- Ta-152H 

that's all i can think of at the moment, you see what i mean now.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Why cant we have 2 engines...


----------



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

because you'd take all the charistics from the P-38.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

So?


----------



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

kinda takes the fun out of it, and the P-38 doesn't have all the best charactoristics for twin engined planes....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

It has the characteristics I want though...

And you know it would be impossible to have that plane, sertaings contradict each other.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 28, 2004)

And we're off to a roaring start!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yup  Due to the 'enginist' nature of 2 engines being banned I refuse to take part


----------



## R Pope (Nov 28, 2004)

Why not just quote the specs of the Martin-Baker MB-5?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

What was the Martin-Baker MB-5?


----------



## R Pope (Nov 28, 2004)

My hero, test pilot Jan Zurakowski, said it was a cross between a P-51 and a V-2! Looks like a big Mustang with a Griffon engine.Damn! Wish I had a scanner!


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

Fusalage of a 110 ,
only 1 engine , (in the nose of course)
no rear gunner ,
109 K-6 engine ,
2 20mm in the wingroots ,
2 7.9mm in the nose ,
tail like the 109 , 
SC500 payload (fighter bomber aspect) ,
armament like a 190 ,
Range like a zero , 
shorter wings than 110 (curved at the ends too ) 

thats my dream fighter ,  
Ill call it the Bf-112


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> It has the characteristics I want though...
> 
> And you know it would be impossible to have that plane, sertaings contradict each other.



i'll be under table if anybody wants me


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 28, 2004)

As far as the armament is concerned, this spells out the ideal: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ideal.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## R Pope (Nov 28, 2004)

Cheddar cheese, if you want a twin, how about a Whirlwind with Merlins? Or Griffons? Fix up the wierd fuel delivery system and you've got a worldbeater!


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 29, 2004)

That's easy... (I assume we are restricting this to props right?)

I'd take an F8F Bearcat, which is largely based on the FW-190A series (basically a 190A-Hellcat hybrid) but with the much better US P&W 2800 C series engine. Add in NO2 injection from the 109K/Ta152, and arm it with 6 x B20 cannon from the LA7-FNV with 200 rpg (these were not the most potent cannon, but they were quite light so 6 could easily be fitted).

The result would be a 475 mph class fighter that could climb at nearly 7,000 feet per minute, turn on a dime, had excellent durability, and spit out 80 rounds per second of 20mm. And it could operate off a carrier deck too!

 

Lunatic

PS: F4U was tougher than the P-47 (USAAF determination after post-war testing)

PPS: The quick change engine on the F4U and F6F probably made these easier to maintain than the Hurc. It only took a few hours to swap out an engine.

PPPS: I don't think any liquid cooled engine is a contender... air cooled engines were just so much more rugged. One hit to the radiator of a liquid cooled plane and it's done in 5 minutes. But a radial could have a cylinder or two blown off and still make it hundreds of miles back to base.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

R Pope said:


> Cheddar cheese, if you want a twin, how about a Whirlwind with Merlins? Or Griffons? Fix up the wierd fuel delivery system and you've got a worldbeater!



Unfortunately the lanc said we're not allowed 2 engines, he spoils all my fun


----------



## Andrew (Nov 29, 2004)

Cheddar Cheese Wrote


> What was the Martin-Baker MB-5?



It was one of these

http://www.aafo.com/gallery/01-08-01.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

My GOD thats ugly  Was it used in WW2?


----------



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

doesn't look to bad.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

I expected you to say that...


----------



## R Pope (Nov 29, 2004)

Cheddar cheese--If you think that's ugly, I'd hate to see your girlfriends!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 29, 2004)

It was a bit different looking, but in a cool sleek sort of way!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 29, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ok so you can make you dream WWII single engined fighter by taking different aspects of different planes, the only rules are as we're talking about single engined fighters all aspects must be taken from singled fighters and no more than two aspects from each plane, i realise that's a bit confusing so observe:-
> 
> manouverability- A6M5 Zero
> Range- A6M5 zero
> ...



A6M2 Zero
Mustang
Hellcat
Bf-109
*EDIT*AGAIN*-Me-263 
Fw-190A
Corsair
Bv155


There we go, you already provided the parameters, I just plugged it in...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

I think he said you can only use prop planes...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Manouverability - Fiat G.56
Range - Reggiane Re-2005 
Durability - Fiat G.56
Ease of repair and manufacture - Macchi MC.205
Speed - Fiat G.55
Armourment - Macchi MC.205 
Payload - Reggiane Re-2005
Ceiling - Fiat G.55


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 30, 2004)

Interesting


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Hopefully that will successfully piss the lanc off


----------



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

actually there was no mention of piston engined planes in my post, jet and rocket planes arer accepted, just as long as they only have one engine...............

and i realised last night i put said i'd have the speed of the Do-335, however that was a twin engine, i'm supprised no-one pointed that out, as such i wish to change my chosen fighter for speed to the Me-163 Komet.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Why, the ME-263 was faster...


----------



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

yes but i've never seen stats for the 263.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

Type: Interceptor
Origin: Messerscmitt AG
Models: A
First Flight: August 1944
Service Delivery: None
Final Delivery: None
Engine:
Walter HWK 109-509C-4 rocket
Main Thrust Chamber: 3,750 lb. (1700kg)
Cruise Thrust Chamber: 660 lb. (300kg)

Dimensions:
Wing span: 9.50m (31 ft. 2 in.)
Length: 7.88m (25 ft. 10.5 in.)
Height: 2.70m (8 ft. 10.25 in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 2105kg (4,640 lbs.)
Maximum: 5150kg (11,354 lbs.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed:
1000km/h (620 mph)
Time to 15,000m: 3 Minutes
Endurance: About 1 Hr. including 15 min. under power
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon

Avionics:
N/A


----------



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

right then

speed- Me-263


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

Haha


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

If you go with Jets, only a few hundred could be built per year at best. Producability (is that a word) is also important. Jets should not be included in this catagory, as they were not producable in 1945.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

I hink this is just a fun thread for you to say what parts of planes you would have to creat your "ulimate fighter". If we were being serious I could have ripped it to shreads by now


----------



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

and that's why we can take charactoristics from other aircraft, i chose the reliabilty and ease of manufacture from the hurricane, that means that the entire made up aircraft will have the reliabilty and ease of manufacture of the hurricane, including the engines...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

But with the other characteristics from the other planes there is no way that'd be possible.

But like a say, its a fun thread.


----------



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

> But with the other characteristics from the other planes there is no way that'd be possible.



i know, but like you say, just a bit of fun..............


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 5, 2004)

I find it interesting that whenever the question of the Best fighter comes up the P-38 is excluded!


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 5, 2004)

what do u mean by payload? how much a bomber carry?


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 5, 2004)

stuka can carry 2000lb bombs, but even a p-47 can carry 2X1000lb bombs AND 6 4.5" rockets as a normal fighter-bomber payload


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 5, 2004)

whats the ceiling 4 the Ta-152H?


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 6, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> I find it interesting that whenever the question of the Best fighter comes up the P-38 is excluded!



Without the P-38K being part of the consideration, it just doesn't quite rate. Had they been willing to stop the production likes in mid 44 for about 12 days to do the conversion, the P-38K would have dominated the skies everywhere it saw action. Without that prop upgrade, there are just too many other planes which were better - the F4U-4 comes to mind for me.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 6, 2004)

Best plane is like this:

-A triplane with staggered wings - 1 in the front, 2 in the back.
-Randomly placed control surfaces.
-1 engine in the front, 1 on top, so that the fighter flies in an upwardly diagonal direction.
-Vital components like the bracings or wing-warping wires are designed to come off for no reason and without warning "just for kicks."
-A fixed undercart because all those moving bits are so complicated.

The advantage to this aircraft is that no flight training is required. The pilot has either "got it" or "not got it" and the "not got its" will be seperated from the "got its" by a distinct class barrier known as "dead" and "not dead," the "not deads" being the "got its" and the "dead" being the "not got its."

The justification for the aircraft is simple: The Sopwith Camel, being a somewhat tricky plane to fly shot down over 1500 enemy aircraft while killing in excess of 2000 of it's own operators. My aircraft, being exponentially more difficult to takeoff (let alone fly - let aone in combat) should kill something to the extent of 99% of it's operators (being the "not got its" of previous paragraph). However the 1% (See: "Got its") that will become aces in the aircraft should shoot down about 5000 aircraft (each).

Countries like Russia with disposable income and populations will be delighted with the fighter, as it is a way to dispose of political enemies as well as your standard run-of-the-mill war enemies.

Aircraft also functions in peacetime operations, so fathers can get rid of troublesome young men trying to date their daughters, etc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

Adolf Galland said:


> stuka can carry 2000lb bombs, but even a p-47 can carry 2X1000lb bombs AND 6 4.5" rockets as a normal fighter-bomber payload



Stukas could carry nearly 5000lbs.....


Ta-152 ceiling - 48,760ft


----------



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

Cheap Labour said:


> Best plane is like this:
> 
> -A triplane with staggered wings - 1 in the front, 2 in the back.
> -Randomly placed control surfaces.
> ...





interesting theory.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

It works as well 

The Russians would then go on to use with with incredible effect, shooting down Ta-152's in their hundreds, and baffling everyone how they did it


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 6, 2004)

The P-38k was fantastic however when the L model performance is not far behind. As for the F4u there is an article on the "Planes and Pilots" web page trying to make the point for the F-4u he keeps using the phrase "except for the P-38". A phrase that is used a lot in fighter comparisons.


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 6, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> It works as well
> 
> The Russians would then go on to use with with incredible effect, shooting down Ta-152's in their hundreds, and baffling everyone how they did it



Yes. Make sure, however, that your pilotical enemy has no chance of becoming a "got it" because if he has "got it" then you've really "done it."

You can't chop a national hero, can you?


----------



## R Pope (Dec 6, 2004)

The deHaviland Hornet would fly rings around the P-38. Two Merlins instead of those wimpy Allison "Time bombs"!


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 6, 2004)

And a B-17 has FOUR engines and it couldn't fly a ring around my house. Put less stock in powerplant, and more in airframe.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 6, 2004)

Actuly the P-38L was very reliable enough so that the last mission of WWII into Borneo on Aug. 14. 45 is reported to have been 2,800 mi round trip. It also had a top speed of 443 mph at wep throttle settings. The P-38L didn't give up anything to any WWII piston fighter.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 6, 2004)

> Stukas could carry nearly 5000lbs.....


The Ju 87D was able to carry this huge bomb of 4000lb - the most it can carry, not 5000lb, AND only at short ranges


----------



## Hurricane IIc (Dec 6, 2004)

Best possible fighter? How about a late model P-38 with the contra-rotating engines of the Hornet; kind of like the P-51 combination but twin-engine safety.
Also a contender might be the Hawker Tempest II if produced earlier due to a better attitude toward it! 
EARLY-WAR TWIN: Westland Whirlwind with Merlin engines - FAST! For cross-channel offensive. Also Gloster twin (F.35 or F.37 I think) with 1500 HP radials from Beaufighter.
JUNGLE: Hurricane IV with "b" wing armament. 1620HP, 4-blade prop, 2-20mm + 4-.303mg + bombs/rockets. Versatile, reliable, easy to fix, tough; better low-level speed could be attained by replacing belly radiator with leading-edge ones onto those thick wings as done on Mosquito; resulting increased wing area would give more lift for jungle strips? Or even on Aircraft Carriers?


----------



## R Pope (Dec 6, 2004)

The Hornet was the fastest prop plane of WW2, lighter and more agile than the P-38.


----------



## Cheap Labour (Dec 6, 2004)

That doesn't mean it could fly a ring around a P-38.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 6, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> The P-38k was fantastic however when the L model performance is not far behind. As for the F4u there is an article on the "Planes and Pilots" web page trying to make the point for the F-4u he keeps using the phrase "except for the P-38". A phrase that is used a lot in fighter comparisons.



Yes, but that compares the P-38G with the F4U-1 or F4U-1d. In this comparison, the P-38 still has a climb rate advantage and an altitude advantage.

But the F4U-4 is a whole different story. 463 mph @ 20.7K (448 with capped pylons) makes it one of the fastest planes of WWII. The paddle prop makes it accelerate about as well as the P-38L. And at under 4.9 mins to 20,000 feet, it is the best climbing US plane of WWII. And it turned better than the P-38L too (except slow - which doesn't matter).

Many 1945 F4U-1d's also had much improved performance. Almost all recieved water injection by Fall 1944, and many recieved a paddle prop upgrade as well.

Finally, the F4U was the toughest fighter of WWII, bar none. No plane could take the damage it could and return home, not even the P-47.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Adolf Galland said:


> > Stukas could carry nearly 5000lbs.....
> 
> 
> The Ju 87D was able to carry this huge bomb of 4000lb - the most it can carry, not 5000lb, AND only at short ranges



I read somewhere the G model could carry 4960lbs of bombs...



And R Pope, the Allison was a great engine, very effecient and pretty reliable too. If the P-38 had Merlins it would have been incredible. I think there were plans for this to go ahead but a flying version was never built.


----------



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

remember you don't have to talk about realy planes here, just aspects of different ones.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

I know but I like correcting people with my new found knowledge, which has come up from nowhere...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 7, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > The P-38k was fantastic however when the L model performance is not far behind. As for the F4u there is an article on the "Planes and Pilots" web page trying to make the point for the F-4u he keeps using the phrase "except for the P-38". A phrase that is used a lot in fighter comparisons.
> ...



Check the graphs attached to the articles in the web page "Planes and Pilots of WWII". The most widly published stats of the P-38L are in METO power in WEP the P-38L gets to 20,000 in 4.5 -4.7 min. There are also several accounts with pictures of P-38s coming home after collisions with other aircraft, being the toughest is in many ways subjective. Consider this, no F-4U (an excelent aircraft) ever got home after losing an engine.
An additional P-38 reference is Warren Bodies book on the P-38, Mr Bodie worked as an engineer at Lockheed and has previously unpublished data. There were many truly excelent aircraft in WWII on all sides but none had the range of features the P-38 had. By the way in ACM the P-38 could hold its own with any aircraft who got the bounce would likely determine the winner.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 7, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > The P-38k was fantastic however when the L model performance is not far behind. As for the F4u there is an article on the "Planes and Pilots" web page trying to make the point for the F-4u he keeps using the phrase "except for the P-38". A phrase that is used a lot in fighter comparisons.
> ...



No, the comparison is the F-4U-4. Also according to Martin Caiden who was with the 5th air force in WWII P-38Ls on occasion hauled a 5,000+ pound payload in combat conditions. Abouve 300mph the P-38J-25 andL models rolled faster than any fighter in WWII. There are also many reports of pilots like Bong out turning the vaunted Zero.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 7, 2004)

Correction I read the graph wrong the P-38L climbed to 20K in 5min with WEP power settings - still compettitive.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 7, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> And R Pope, the Allison was a great engine, very effecient and pretty reliable too. If the P-38 had Merlins it would have been incredible. I think there were plans for this to go ahead but a flying version was never built.



I'm not sure it would have made much difference at all. The big advantage to the merlin was it's integrated supercharger stage. One of the two stages of supercharging is integrated into the engine design, and sits between/above the valve bay. The Allison engine required to external supercharger stages to achieve the same levels of performance.
On the P-38, the merlin would have saved some room, but there was ample room in the boom design for both the external supercharger stage and the turbo charger stage, on the P-51, there was not.

Also, another fact is that the USA had it's own higher performance engine in the works. The Continental HyperEngine was ready for production at the start of US involvement in WWII, and it featured even more power than the Merlin (by virtue of its Hemi-Head design). However, the Merlin was a well established design, and more importantly, the USA wanted to produce Merlins for British use, and there was insufficeint tooling available to produce both.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

> according to Martin Caiden who was with the 5th air force in WWII P-38Ls on occasion hauled a 5,000+ pound payload in combat conditions



yes bit it's range with that would have been absolutely dreadful..............



> Abouve 300mph the P-38J-25 andL models rolled faster than any fighter in WWII



the Fw-190A rolled better than any othe fighter................



> There are also many reports of pilots like Bong out turning the vaunted Zero.



250kts plus anything could out turn the zero.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

We're talking under that speed here...

The P-38 rolls damn fast, and with a lot more stability because it isnt rolling around one axis where all the weight is...

Yes the range would be dreadful, but with Jugs it'd still be able to manage a fair amount.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 8, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > according to Martin Caiden who was with the 5th air force in WWII P-38Ls on occasion hauled a 5,000+ pound payload in combat conditions
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Check the graphs in the "Planes and Pilots of WWII" at 275mph the 190 at over140deg/sec was the champ by 350mph the P-38L was 10deg faster and more than 30deg faster by the time 400mph came around. As for the Zero all fights were not above 250mph.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 8, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > according to Martin Caiden who was with the 5th air force in WWII P-38Ls on occasion hauled a 5,000+ pound payload in combat conditions
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's also true that combat had 2 phases normaly, the bounce and the fight. The bounce is usualy above 300 and the fight below 300. It's also true that only very good to exceptional pilots could get the truly world class ACM out of the P-38.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 8, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > And R Pope, the Allison was a great engine, very effecient and pretty reliable too. If the P-38 had Merlins it would have been incredible. I think there were plans for this to go ahead but a flying version was never built.
> ...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

Concerning the P-38 and its 2 engine survivability, I have read many instances where the pilot was killed/beheaded/severed in half by the exploding engine and prop blades flying through the canopy as a result of combat damage.... 

Losing one engine on a P-38 does not guarantee a return flight home....


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

Below is a chart of some WWII aircraft roll rates.

The FW190 roll rate is deceptive. Yes it is very fast, but it is also very dependant upon speed. As you can see, at 250 IAS it is managing about 185 deg/s RoR, but by 350 IAS it's down to about half that. The sharp drop off is a negative for the pilot. It means he has to be cognizant of his planes speed quite accurately to know how the plane is going to react to his stick movements. In the P-51, at 250 IAS or 350 IAS, rolling 90 degrees is 1 second of stick hard to the side. In the FW190, at 250 IAS rolling 90 degrees is 1/2 second of stick hard to the side, but at 350 IAS it takes a full second. This had to be difficult to deal with in the high-speed combat of 1944-45. 

The P-51 data shown is for a P-51B-1-NA, which was one of the first units off the line for production testing. The "seal balanced" aileron was just added immeadiately prior to this model, which greatly reduces the stick forces needed to achive a given RoR, and increases the maxium RoR (but not that much because the limits are reached) at speeds above 300 IAS. The effectiveness of the seal-balance ailerons improved greatly between this test plane and those that went to Europe. Very Late model P-47D's also had this technology (refered to as "blunt aileron technology").

The P-38L (and some late model J's) had hydrolic assist ailerons, meaning that there was no 50 lbs stick force limit. At high speeds in other planes, the pilot simply cannot generate maximum roll rates because he is not strong enough to push the stick over to achieve maximum aileron deflection. This is why most roll rate figures use 50 lbs or 40 lbs of stick pressure as a limiting factor, but this limiting factor is meaningless on the P-38L, it never required 50 lbs of stick pressure. Above about 350-370 IAS, the P-38L rolled better than the FW190. But even at lower speeds, its effectiveness at rolling was much higher, as the pilot could roll easily with little physical effort.

The P-47 was one of the very few planes in WWII for which the RoR did not diminish severely when pulling G's. This allowed the P-47 pilot to do rolling scissors and barrel roll moves in one smooth motion where their opponents had to do them in a series of steps. In general, the comment by P-47 pilots when asked about the extremely fast roll of the FW is that they never had a problem rolling with the FW or any other plane. I think this is the reason why.

Finally, the cockpit design is important to how much stick force a pilot can reasonably generate. In a cramped 109 cockpit, it was not reasonable for a pilot to generate 50 lbs of sideways force on the stick, and it would have been very difficult to do so in a FW which also had a cramped cockpit. In the P-51, the pilot could lean into it much more and get more pressure on the stick. And the P-38 didn't even have a stick, it had a steering wheel. Zero pilots were known to modify the stick on their planes, extending it to get more leverage.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2004)

Your points are well taken one thing I've read time and again is that the P-38 also had the ability to magnify the rool by differential throttle to add tourque effect in the desired direction, something only conter rotating props can add. That's not shown in the graphs and I don't know how to quantify it because not all pilots were good enough to use it. The P-38 also had a wheel to maximize the pilots ability to control the aircraft. Twin engine training was for crap and often pilots with as little as 20 hours in high performance fighters and no time in twins were put in P-38s. This was particurlary bad in the ETO.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Concerning the P-38 and its 2 engine survivability, I have read many instances where the pilot was killed/beheaded/severed in half by the exploding engine and prop blades flying through the canopy as a result of combat damage....
> 
> Losing one engine on a P-38 does not guarantee a return flight home....



True but losing an engine in a single engined aircraft guranted an immediate landing regardless of where you were.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

This is true.....


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 10, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> Your points are well taken one thing I've read time and again is that the P-38 also had the ability to magnify the rool by differential throttle to add tourque effect in the desired direction, something only conter rotating props can add. That's not shown in the graphs and I don't know how to quantify it because not all pilots were good enough to use it. The P-38 also had a wheel to maximize the pilots ability to control the aircraft. Twin engine training was for crap and often pilots with as little as 20 hours in high performance fighters and no time in twins were put in P-38s. This was particurlary bad in the ETO.



The "Lockheed Stomp" is generally considered to be a myth. It was tried some by test pilots, but I've never seen an account of a pilot actually utilizing this in combat. And all such techniques are only useful in low speed combat. Any 1944 pilot who was enaging in low speed combat was a fool.

Yes, training in the P-38 was minimal in Europe. As I've previously posted, the control layout was also poor, requiring about 8 steps to go from cruise condition with drop tanks to combat condition (this was finally largely solved by the L model).

The F4U was a much better ground attack plane than the P-38. The P-38 was quite susceptable to ground fire, the F4U was quite resistant.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## R Pope (Dec 10, 2004)

If you're talking roll rate at low speed, the much-maligned Oscar beats all other modern monoplanes, with the possible exception of the Polikarpov I-16.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 11, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > Your points are well taken one thing I've read time and again is that the P-38 also had the ability to magnify the rool by differential throttle to add tourque effect in the desired direction, something only conter rotating props can add. That's not shown in the graphs and I don't know how to quantify it because not all pilots were good enough to use it. The P-38 also had a wheel to maximize the pilots ability to control the aircraft. Twin engine training was for crap and often pilots with as little as 20 hours in high performance fighters and no time in twins were put in P-38s. This was particurlary bad in the ETO.
> ...



You should check out the web page "P-38(C.C.Jorden...)" He has extensivly reaserched these issues And interviewed various WWII p-lots like Ilfrey, Heiden and others. Your also right about early P-38s having issues with complicated cocpit. The P-38 has a very good record of ground attack and coming home with battle damage including mid air collisions. The airplane most suscetable to groung fire was the P-51.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 11, 2004)

Oh I've thoroughly read Jordan's pages. Still, I don't believe the lockheed stomp was used in combat, if it was, only by a handful of pilots. It was known that doing this in testing bent the frame.

Where the P-38 stood out in low speed combat was in its extrodinary low end accelaration. You can watch the film at http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html and they have a scene where the P-38 (D I believe) is next to a chase plane doing 95 knots, and then it pours on the gas and pulls away like a dragster - and the pilot does not nose down, it climbs pretty much too.

A good pilot could stay on the six of a better turning plane by lifting the nose, tilting the plane just so, and then letting it stall onto the new track, and then using the acceleration to regain speed/energy. There is a famous instance of a P-38L mock dogfight with a Spit XIV where the P-38 got on the Spit's six and the Spit could not shake it.

Yes the P-38 was certainly better than the P-51 for ground attacks, espeically the P-51B which had no armor protecting the radiator. But it does not compare to the P-47 or the F4U for this role, since its liquid cooled engines make it highly vulnerable to ground fire. Any hit to the engine or the radiator or the pulumbing is a lost engine, even from rifel cailber rounds.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 11, 2004)

The video is cool, thanks!


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 11, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> The video is cool, thanks!



The one on the P-51 is pretty good too. Most are early level training films, often very focused on checklists and takeoff and landing proceedures, but some have some other tid-bits in them as well.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 7, 2005)

i believe the f4u corsair, spitfire, hawker hurricane the p-51 mustang and the fw109 were the best fighters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

dinos7 said:


> and the fw109 were the best fighters.



Do you mean Bf-109 (Me-109) or the Fw-190?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

He better mean Fw-190 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

Well I agree somewhat but I still think the 109 was one of the best aircraft but she was not the best possible fighter.

Out of his list I would go with the 190 if that is what he means. Deffinatly not a 109 or a Hurricane.


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 10, 2005)

i meant the fw-190


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 10, 2005)

I'll stick with these P-38, Spitfire, fw-190/Ta-152 and F4U.

The P-51 was a good aircraft but I would choose the planes mentioned above first. The only advantage the P-51 has over the last 3 is range, and it doesn't even have that over the P-38.

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 10, 2005)

remember guys (if you'd read the first pages) that the idea of this thread isn't to find the best fighters, it's to design you're own single engined fighter taking characteristics from different fighters..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Hmmm lets see then. You know I dont know because I dont think with what was operational in WW2 you could get something better then a Ta-152.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

If the Italians had continued plane development we could have seen some rivals for the Ta-152.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

Such as?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

Well, in 1943 the Series-5 fighters were beter than anything at the time. The Fiat G.56 with the DB-603 would have been great, and although never built, the Re-2006 could have been similarly great. Ok these planes are not up to Ta-152 standards, but I think that given 2 more years of design and development at the same rate they were going at in 1943 they could have had some truly great fighters around.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

Hmmm, possibly.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

Its impossible to tell though really. Im just going by logic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

I dont see the Italians being capable of doing so. Even today they rely on others for anything that is worth a damn.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

Sounds like here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Yeah but you guys buy some pretty good stuff though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

We do?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

You bought the Hornet and the Leopard tanks. My understanding is you are buying new ones also. Dont you use the Fox also. The Fox is pretty sweet.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

Not sure about the Fox.
The problem Adler is that we'll buy or make something ourselves, and then keep it around for forty years at a stretch. There's only so much updating you can do to a piece of equipment.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Yeah but the new Leopards that I believe you are buying from Germany are just as good as any main battle tank out there. I am not sure if you are buying it but I heard from a Friend of mine from Ottowa that you are. We need to get back on topic after this though. Here it is:

*Leopard IIA-6*



> LEOPARD 2 MAIN BATTLE TANK, GERMANY
> The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank developed by Krauss-Maffei AG, now Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), of Munchen, Germany. The Leopard 2 is a successor to the successful Leopard 1.
> 
> LEOPARD 2 PROGRAMME
> ...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

Cool. Thanks for the info.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Yeap now we wait till someone gets back on track with this thread because honestly other then the Ta-152 I dont how to make a better fighter based of off aircraft that already existed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

grrr you guys are annoying!! this was supposed to be a fuin thread in which you design you're own fighter taking charatoristics from other planes, read my opening post again 



The lanc said:


> ok so you can make you dream WWII single engined fighter by taking different aspects of different planes, the only rules are as we're talking about single engined fighters all aspects must be taken from singled fighters and no more than two aspects from each plane, i realise that's a bit confusing so observe:-
> 
> manouverability- A6M5 Zero
> Range- A6M5 zero
> ...



you see!! we're not looking for the single best fighter........

and before anyone says anything, yes, i know the Do-335 was a twin engine but i forgot that at the time.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Ah calm down okay!

Alright here you go:

Manouverability: Spitfire XIV
Range: P-51D 
Durability: Fw-190A-8
Ease of Repair and Maintenance: Hurricane
Speed: Ta-152H
Armament: Fw-190A-8
Payload: P-47D
Cieling: Ta-152H

OH and by the way Lanc, The Stuka that you put down for payload is not a single engine fighter it was a dive bomber.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2005)

Manouverability: Spitfire IX 
Range: P-51D 
Durability: P47 
Ease of Repair and Maintenance: Hurricane 
Speed: Martin Baker 5
Armament: Tempest 
Payload: P-47D 
Ceiling: Ta-152H


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2005)

Manouverability - Reggiane Re-2000
Range - P-51D
Durability - P-47
Ease of Repair and Maintenance - Fiat CR.42
Speed - XP-47J
Armament - Fiat G.55
Payload - Reggiane Re-2005
Ceiling - Blohm und Voss Bv-155


----------



## trackend (Jun 12, 2005)

Maouverability Gloster Gladiator
Range P51
Durability P47
Easy of repair Hurrie
Speed F24 Spitfire
Armament P47
Payload Cosair F4u
Ceiling 152H


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

now we're talking............


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2005)

I conceed to Trackend apart from Armament, where I stick with the Tempest.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2005)

The Re-2000 could out-turn a CR.42, so im fairly sure it could out-turn a Gladiator too


----------



## trackend (Jun 12, 2005)

You may be write Cheesy im not very up on the RE 2000 but anything with a nice stubby wing is a chuck about plane that's assuming of course the wings didnt fold or the pilot have his eyeballs pushed through the back of his head with the G.s in a 450mph full stick Iimmelman.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

We all have one thing in common though. For cieling we chose Ta-152H.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2005)

because it had a bloody high ceiling


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

Yes that it did.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 15, 2005)

Actually Im changing my Ceiling to a plane that beat the Ta-152 by a considerable amount...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

And what plane would that be. I know there were soem but what is yours.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

Ah I just went back and looked. I would still go with the Ta-152 because the 155 well she really did not do anything. But it is still a good choice and interesting.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 15, 2005)

Well seen as we dont need to take any other aspects from it its 54,000ft ceiling is all I want. The other stuff about it it wasnt that good...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2005)

man i knew i should have said it had to have seen active service


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2005)

What was the ceiling on the Ju-86P? It must have been high because Spitfire VI and VII were intercepting them at heights of 45,000 - 50,000 feet.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 16, 2005)

Ju-86P ceiling = 12,800 meters. Cant be bothered to work that out in ft, but the Ju-86R's ceiling was higher, at 13,000m.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

The Ju-86R was 42,650ft and the Ju-86P was approximatly 41,984ft.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2005)

That's not actually that good, I expected it to be better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

I did as well. Tell me more about these Spitfires though... 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

The Ju-86P and R's alltitude was really good for when they first came out but were quickly overshadowed by better and better fighters that could match its alltitude. When the 86 was first being designed the main British fighter was the Hurricane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

I like the Ju-86. Wouldnt want to be the Ventral Gunner though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

All in all it was not very good though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

and useless in combat.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

How was it useless in combat. It could still drop bombs. Sometimes I think you just throw things in there, thats probably how you got your 12000 + posts huh!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

It was a recce plane more than anything. High altitude Spitfire VI and VII were well known to intercept them at high altitude over North Africa and Italy. The VVS were begging Britain for Spitfire IX to intercept them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

Oh I believe it dont take me wrong. She was not a very good plane, I just think it is funny sometimes how Lanc posts stuff but give you no reason.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

I believe they did a few high level raids on Moscow during '43 and the VVS were requesting Britain to deliver Spitfire IXs for PVO duty.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

I am surprised the Russians did not have anything that could fly that high because the altitude was not that great.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 19, 2005)

alder, look into the combat achievements of the plane, apart from herald the creation of new high altitude spitfires, what did the -86 do that made it not useless in combat??


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

Only the MiG-3 was capable of high altitude combat in the VVS. The Spitfire IX was superior to any variant of the MiG-3.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> alder, look into the combat achievements of the plane, apart from herald the creation of new high altitude spitfires, what did the -86 do that made it not useless in combat??



I think the plane is crap too, dont take me wrong Lanc but it could still drop bombs and act as a recon aircraft in some areas. The Swordfish was completly obsolete and outclassed and out performed by anything in the sky but was it useless? No.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2005)

no it wasn't useless because it actually achieved something, the -86 didn't really which is why i made my original comment.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

In that case I will agree with you.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 20, 2005)

Guys im having a tough discision about what was the better fighter: P51D Mustang or German ME262.

P51 had better turning and movement
Me262 was faster
P51 packed .50 cal
Me262 was packing six guns(i cant remember what model gun though!)

So what do u think was better?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

That is a tough one. 

If you want to go by reliability then I would say the P-51 because its engine lasted more then 10 hours.

It also depends on what role you are using it for.

Dog fighting or defending bombers (ie. what it was mostley used for as an escort fighter) the P-51D was better. It had farther range and better maneuaverability.

If you are talking about Intercepting such as bomber formations or as a fighter bomber then I would have to say the Me-262. It was faster and had better armament.

The Me-262 was a more advanced aircraft and the most advanced aircraft to see combat by the end of WW2 but it was not very reliable.

I dont think you can compare the two and decide which one was better because of the fact that they were two different kinds of fighters and each was better then the other in its intended role.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

The P-51 carried six M2 Browning .50cal. The Me-262 carried four MK103 30 mm cannon, I've seen them with only two 30 mm.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I have only seen them with 4 before but then again I have only actually seen 3 Me-262's before. As all aircraft they came in a variety of weapon systems.

Some Me-262 weapons variations (I am not 100% sure these are correct for these varients though):

Me 262A-1a:
Four 30mm MK 108 cannon in nose
-Two with 100 rounds each, two with 80
Me 262A-1a/U1:
-Two 30mm MK 103
-Two MK 108
-Two 20mm MG 151/20

Me 262A-1b:
As A-1a plus 24 spin-stabilised R4/M 55mm rockets

Me 262A-2a:
As A-1a plus bomb load of two 500kg bombs

Me 262B-1a:
As A-1a

Me 262B-2a:
As A-1A plus two inclined MK 108 behind the cockpit in Schrage Musik installation
(D) SG 500 Jagdfaust with 12 rifled mortar barrels inclined in nose
(E) 50mm MK 114 gun or 48 R4/M rockets


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

It's not well known but I have a picture in Bill Gunston's _Classic Fighters_ with a Me-262 with only two cannons in the nose. 

The caption reads: _Messerschmitt AG took this photograph of an A-1a with only the outer pair of 30 mm guns. Apparently Werk-Nr 170 056, it is not an A-1a/U3 reconnaissance model, which often had no guns at all, nor does it have bomb racks. Several pure fighter versions serving with KG {J} 54 and Jv-44 in 1945 had only two guns._


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

It would not surprise me but I wonder why since removing those 2 guns would not alter the performance any bit.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

Decreased weight, increased speed and climb I suppose. And 30 mm cannons is a bit of an over-kill if they're fighting fighters too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 22, 2005)

but i'd have thought they'd keep the inside ones, given they have more ammo........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 22, 2005)

Maybe the space created by removing the other two gave room for more ammo for the remaining guns.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

Maybe I dont know.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2005)

man with that lack of grammar that post's rather ammusing......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

Man, with that amount of hair your appearance is rather amusing


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2005)

better to have too mcuh hair than too little, i always say


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 23, 2005)

http://www.petebevin.com/archives/2002/02/15/longest_ear_hair_ever.html

You were saying?

Best possible fighter would have to be a Mustang, simply because I'd have 20 other Mustangs around me against every one Axis plane[/url]


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 23, 2005)

Thx a lot guys! Your info really helped! The P51 does prove to be the better fighter against the me262. Your info on the different guns the me262 used were useful as well!  

Thx again guys!


----------



## Erich (Jun 23, 2005)

the standard fighter version had 4 3cm Mk 108 kanon always. Even the bomber versions with KG 51 and 54 had 4 3cm weapons. The 6 canon version - 1 protoype was tested by Heinz Baer. The B-2a was a trainer version and did not fly operations.

1 unit flew with JV 44 having the 5cm weapon and on the two missions flown against B-26's the gun jammed and did not fire in anger.

only in Kommando Welter ~ 10./NJG 11 with the Me 262A-1a was there a special additional trigger mechanism installed for firing only two cannon although the jets were armed with the four 3cm standards.

the B-1a/U1 twin seater was also fitted with four 3cm kanon. 1 unit was tested with only two 3cm weapons but never flown on ops.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 24, 2005)

Ok.I have a new topic. Which aircraft do u think was the better: The de Havillno Mosquito or the Northrop P62? I know that the P-62 was armed

with any weapon systems, (at least i dont think) while the Mosquito turned 

into a killing a machine withe 4 20mm guns in the nose, carried 8 6inch rockets! But which proved to be the better ? In reconnacines though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 24, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> Ok.I have a new topic. Which aircraft do u think was the better: The de Havillno Mosquito or the Northrop P62? I know that the P-62 was armed
> 
> with any weapon systems, (at least i dont think) while the Mosquito turned
> 
> into a killing a machine withe 4 20mm guns in the nose, carried 8 6inch rockets! But which proved to be the better ? In reconnacines though



The P-62 from its conception was designed as a night fighter, although Northrop made available other features available where it could of been used in different roles. It only had a top speed of 365 mph. It did carry a wide arry of armamment, especially when the top turret was installed. With that said, the mosquito, not only served as a night figher, but numerous other roles. It was faster, carried what I would call more effective armament and definetly more manuevable. Where the P-62 maybe had an edge was in its radar, a very advanced unit for its day.

My money is with the Mossie, but I think the -62 probably carried better radar.


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2005)

try P-61 and no it was not as good as the Mossie XIX or XXX.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 24, 2005)

Late P-61's had very impressive performance stats....


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2005)

originator of this thread go back to the old threads please and find some very lengthy converstaion about the P-61 as a night intruder.........

there is absolutely no need to keep repeating news, it is quite tedious


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

Agree but I will throw in my two sense also.

The Blackwidow was too damn big!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 24, 2005)

You r right. I was watching the History Channel about the Mosquito. Not 

only did it serve as those roles but the whole aircraft's outer design was wooden!

If u ask me, i would rather fly the Mosquito than a Spitfire!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

allot of people would, she truely was an amazing aircraft........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

Actually id rather fly a Spitfire 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

Same here. I like the Spitfire better. When it comes to aircraft of WW2 I prefer the straight foward fighters.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

Me too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

I would either have to with a Bf-109G-10, Ta-152H or P-47N. They in my opinion are the best aircraft. The Bf-109G-10 only because the Bf-109 is my favorite aircraft but the other 2 because they were pretty much the best things in the sky over Europe.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 26, 2005)

Yeah, if i were to fly any aircraft they would be the P38j Lightning, P51D Mustang, Mosquito, or a German aircraft that i like, the Focke Wulf 190! I think these were some of the best fighters that anyone could have flown. But this is my opinion. Anybody wanna share anymore favorite aircraft they would fly? Because we are all ears!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 26, 2005)

Opps! Forget to put in naval aircraft. I would fly the F4U Corsair.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 26, 2005)

I dont think id consider the Mosquito as a "great fighter" since I dont think it operated as a pure day fighter. It was probably the best night-fighter though.

And what makes you say P-38J? I think id rather be sittn' pretty in a P-38L than a J.

I agree on the Fw-190 (D-9 for me though) 8) 8)

I think a comparison between the F4U-4 and Fw-190D-9 or Bf-109G-10 would be interesting, as Corsair's saw most action in the pacific against mostly inferior planes. Did any Corsairs ever meet Luftwaffe opposition and if so, how did they fare?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 26, 2005)

How bout this answer.........

Id fly anything, including a damn Cessna, if given the opportunity and the grace of God... Zero, Corsair, 190 or 109......... Dauntless, Lightning, Hayete, Spitfire........

ANY AND ALL!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2005)

and CC, the mossie was used as a "pure day fighter", F.Mk.IIs were used by 23Sqn to defend malta, as one of their more notable uses, and, of course, all FB marks were used as fighters..........


----------



## trackend (Jun 26, 2005)

Id go with Les on this but if I had to pick one only Its the Stringbag not because it was a great plane because it was not, but just to get a taste of the sort of guts it took to go into an attack knowing that the only thing slower and less well armed to protect itself was the odd spotter plane
stooging around.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 26, 2005)

Hey i agree with Lancaster kicks ass. The Mosquito even made a great "Pure day fighter" She was a sweet bird that could kick some LuftWaffe ass anytime.  But being an American i would go with America's finest WWII Aircraft. If i were to fly a fighter it would be the P51D, P38J, or the Mk.IV Mosquito!! Hoorah!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2005)

ok yes i agree the mossie was a great pure day fighter too, i feel i must point out the Mk.IV was in fact a pure bomber, she carried no defensive armourment, but with a speed like that who needs it........


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 27, 2005)

Oops!  My mistake! I met to put Mk.II! Srry!!!!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2005)

I'd fly a Spitfire XXIe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 27, 2005)

Id take an Fw-190A-9


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 27, 2005)

The Focke Wulf would be a great fighter to fly.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2005)

It would but the Spitfire XXIe would be better in my opinion. Especially the prototype Griffon 85 engined Spitfire XXIe with contra-rotating props.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 27, 2005)

I'd still go with the good ol' Boomerang!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

Id love to fly the Bf-109G-10, Fw-190A-8, Fw-190D-9, Me-262, Ta-152, Corsair, Spitfire XIV, and the Storch.


----------

