# WW2 top ten planes



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 21, 2005)

What are your best WW2 planes?

(Doesn't have to be in order, or even 10 really  )


----------



## Udet (Sep 21, 2005)

Shouldn´t you narrow the question? Too wide open.

There can be as many parameters as members are in order to respond the question.

My favorite though -in no particular order-:


(i) Bf 109 G-6 G-6/AS
(ii) Bf 109 G-10
(iii) Bf 109 K-4
(iv) Fw 190 A-8
(v) Fw 190 A-8/R8 Sturmböck (heavy bomber abattoir services)
(vi) Fw 190 D
(vii) Ta 152
(viii) Me 262
(ix) Ju 88 (both "A" bomber version and "G" nachtjäger)
(x) P-47 D


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2005)

god udet you need to start liking bombers 

but i'm gonna assume he means greatest, which should narrow it down, so i'll think on it and hey! i'll even let some american planes slip in!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2005)

Theres already been numourous threads about this...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2005)

well why not have annother!

and i don't really remember that many for the 10 greatest??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2005)

5 greatest...same sorta thing...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2005)

but double the planey goodness..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2005)

But double the thought process


----------



## d_bader (Sep 21, 2005)

C-47 Skytrain
Lancaster
Superfortress
He 111
Corsair
Mustang
IL2- Sturmovik
Zero
Fw200 Condor
Henschel 129

Although some of these planes aren't going to be that popular I've tried to have a few different nationalities.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2005)

B-29
P-38
Fw-190
SM.82
P.108
Re-2005
Hurricane
P-47
SM.79
Re-2000


Thats off the top of my head the planes Im into at the moment.


----------



## chris1966 (Sep 21, 2005)

P-51
F4U
Spitfire
FW-190
Bf-109
Lancaster
B-29
B-17
Ju-88/B-25 (They make my list because of their versatility and I consider them tied)
Me-262 (in 1-on-1 combat, you couldn't touch it)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2005)

B-29
P-51
FW-190D
C-47
B-17
Lancaster
Spitfire
P-38
Hurricane
B-24


----------



## plan_D (Sep 21, 2005)

1.Spitfire 
2.Lancaster
3.Mosquito 
4.Fw-190
5.P-51
6.P-38
7.B-29
8.PBY
9.B-25
10.Corsair


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2005)

greatest ? geez.

probably should be divided by bomber, recon, fighter, night fighter etc...
____________________________________________________________

Night fighter .... Mossie XXX, Ju 88G-6, Me 262A-1a

Bomber ....... Lancaster, B-17

Recon ..... Ju 290

Fighter ...... A very big (?)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 21, 2005)

Top 10
1. P-38
2. F4U-4
3. Ki-84
4. Spitfire
5. Fw-190
6. SB2C
7. A-20
8. B-24
9. PB4Y-s
10. SBD


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 21, 2005)

Here is my ten (ah yes the newbee again) and in no particular order.

1. F4U-D
2. P-51D
3. The Spitfire
4. B-17G
5. SBD
6. PBY
7. FW-190
8. Stormovik
9. P-40
10. B-25


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 21, 2005)

In no particular order

1. Spitfire
2. FW-190A
3. Lancaster
4. Pe-2
5. La-5
6. Me-262
7. B-17
8. Mosquito
9. P-47
10. F4U

That really only scratches the surface though, there were so many planes that come within an ace of each other in therms of quality. I have really gone for planes that were produced in significant numbers as well as had excellent performance.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 21, 2005)

The numbers for the -262 weren't that impressive. Something like 1,200 total build with only 300 making it to ops, right?


----------



## F4D (Sep 22, 2005)

Wow! This is hard!
In no particular order I like,

P-38

P-40

P-47

P-51

Spitfire

FW-190

Mosquito

Yak-9

Ki-84

F6F


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 22, 2005)

Here are mine.

Spitfire
P-51D
BF109 (later marks)
FW190D
TA-152
Corsair
ME-262
Mosquito
Lancaster
B-29


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2005)

Well here is mine no particular order either:

Bf-109G-6
Fw-190D-9
Ta-152H
Spitfire XIV
P-38L
B-17F
A-20
P-47D
Ju-88
Fw-190A


----------



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

Lancaster
Mossie
Meteor
Spitfire
hurricane
wellington
Fw-190 (don't ask why)
Avenger
Corsair
Sunderland


----------



## MacArther (Sep 22, 2005)

P40
B25 H
Hawker Hurrican IID
Hawker Hurrican IIC
Me 163
Do 335


----------



## Udet (Sep 22, 2005)

I´d of course go for the Dornier Do 335.

Did not include it on my list because it did not see combat, although got thoroughly tested. 

I am convinced the lack of a coherent and centralized armament production policy in the Reich doomed the war effort.

A complete geschwader of "Pfeils" could have been a terrorific experience for USAAF escorts, say, in early 1944.

Nothing the allies had in the ETO -nor anything still under their development- could simply deal with it. Faster, superior acceleration and astonishing small turning radius.

It seems so large and sinister, it´d appear it could ram a Mustang without noticing it and continue the flight.


----------



## Glider (Sep 22, 2005)

I'd stack the MB 5 against it should we include tested planes that didn't make service


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 22, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The numbers for the -262 weren't that impressive. Something like 1,200 total build with only 300 making it to ops, right?



1400 built and around 200 saw combat.

Still thats a lot more than some Spitfire marks;

Spitfire XII, 100 built, served in 2 squadrons

Spitfire VI, 100 built, served with 3 squadrons

Spitfire VII, 140 built, served with 4 squadrons

Spitfire XIV, 936 built, served with 8 ETO squadrons, 2 CBI squadrons


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 22, 2005)

Udet said:


> I´d of course go for the Dornier Do 335.
> 
> Did not include it on my list because it did not see combat, although got thoroughly tested.
> 
> ...



Nothing under development! What are you smoking and where can I get some? The Allies had MASSES of planes under development.

XP-47J ring any bells? How about the P-47M or the P-51H? Maybe a XP-72? Or we can go British: Supermarine Spiteful, Martin Baker MB.5, Meteor III, deHavilland Vampire? If the British jets aren't enough, how about a Yp-80? If we are going into flights of fantasy I'm sure that the FAA and the USN would of loved flying their F8Fs and F7Fs off carriers in the North Sea against Do-335s.


----------



## Udet (Sep 23, 2005)

The dreaded P-51 H will have too much trouble dealing with the Bf 109 K-4, Fw 190 D and Ta 152, let alone go against a Pfeil. In the comfort of massive numerical superiority perhaps the H´s can achieve something against it (repeat, perhaps...)

The likewise dreaded P-47 N is left behind in terms of speed, acceleration and turning radius when compared to the Do 335.

The Gloster Meteor ain´t anything to worry about though. The Me 262 is simply better and superior.

The latest Spitfires will have too much trouble dealing with the German planes I mentioned in the first paragraph as well.

P.S. Ah! I do not smoke!


----------



## Glider (Sep 23, 2005)

And what about the Martin Baker 5? Also remember that the Meteor III was in service but the IV a much better beast was just around the corner. 
Not forgeting the Hornet of course and Tempest II.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

Udet I do think you are forgetting that the allied aircraft did not just stop in developement and research and design either. They had lots of very capable designs in the works.


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 23, 2005)

Oh yeah! Allies had tons of planes. There was even a bubble canopy Corsair under development that probably would have blown off the socks of even a P-51. I would have loved to see these Corsairs go aganist the GAF.

XP-47J ring any bells? How about the P-47M or the P-51H? Maybe a XP-72? Or we can go British: Supermarine Spiteful, Martin Baker MB.5, Meteor III, deHavilland Vampire? If the British jets aren't enough, how about a Yp-80? If we are going into flights of fantasy I'm sure that the FAA and the USN would of loved flying their F8Fs and F7Fs off carriers in the North Sea against Do-335s.[/quote]


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 23, 2005)

If you are going to mention 'what-if's for Allied aircraft don't forget the XP-79.


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 23, 2005)

The point is, if Hitler had not been such a poopoo head jabroni, and let his people run the aircraft programs like they wanted to, the Luftwaffe could (and this is a big maybe) altered but probably not changed the course of the war. Even with these kick butt planes, Germany did not have the resources to compete with the Allies, especially the US', industry. Still it makes me think, if the war had been extended because of the "wonder weapons", would the F-86 been thought of and developed sooner?

:{)


----------



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

but the lightening was only designed in 1947 i believe, if the war had carried on it would've made service long before 1960! and there is of course the hunter, vampire and fury, not forgetting the canberra, i realise these're mostly post war planes as it stands, but they would've been developed allot faster had the war carried on, and there would of course be many many more designs..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 23, 2005)

Maybe even B-36's


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 23, 2005)

LG IS IN THE HOUSE!!!!!!

Sup boy, long time.....


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 23, 2005)

Udet said:


> The dreaded P-51 H will have too much trouble dealing with the Bf 109 K-4, Fw 190 D and Ta 152, let alone go against a Pfeil. In the comfort of massive numerical superiority perhaps the H´s can achieve something against it (repeat, perhaps...)
> 
> The likewise dreaded P-47 N is left behind in terms of speed, acceleration and turning radius when compared to the Do 335.
> 
> ...



Lets see.... The P-47M was just as fast as the Do-335. The P-47N was a mere 5 mph slower than the Do-335. It was also MORE manuverable than the P-47D/M series, rolled better and accelerated better thanks to a revised wing design. I'd like to see your evidence about the Dorniers turn and acceleration performance as well. Many reports mention unpleasant 'porposing' and 'snaking' at high speed.

The P-51H has the Pfel beat in terms of sheer speed. I also wonder just how well your vaunted Pfiel would of manouvered, considering it was around 60% heavier than a P-51H at basic loadout and had worse powerloading and wingloading.

By the way, there were 210 Meteor IIIs produced by the end of the war, all with improved Derwent engines, which really transformed the Gloster jet. In level speed terms alone the Meteor went from 414 mph to 493 mph with the new engines, doubled its rate of climb, revised the engine nacels to eliminte buffet, improved fuel capacity, revised cockpit and other improvements. Admittedly, it wasn't as fast as a Me-262, but it is still a dramatic improvement, edging the 262 out in a climb.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> Still it makes me think, if the war had been extended because of the "wonder weapons", would the F-86 been thought of and developed sooner?
> 
> :{)



Doubt it since it owed a lot of its design to German designs and inovations.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 24, 2005)

whereas british jets weren't as much...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Agreed for the most part.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 25, 2005)

It is hard, sorry!  

Mine are probably:

LaGG3/7

Spitfire

HO-IX/Go229

Fw190

Lancaster 

Me262

Mosquito

Jug

P51

Hellcat


It should have been top 20?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

LaGG-3? What in the world could you like about that?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 25, 2005)

Only Soviet aircraft of any use really, I may change it to Hurricane!


----------



## JCS (Sep 25, 2005)

Heres mine....

1) P-47
2) B-29
3) Lancaster
4) Hellcat
5) FW190
6) Ju88
7) Me262
8) Corsair
9) Spitfire
10) B-25


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 25, 2005)

Nice list JCS


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

That is a nice list JCS.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

There were plenty of Soviet aircraft of more use than the LaGG-3. In terms of fighters, Yak-1,-3,-7,-9 and then the La-5,-7. The Il-2 and Pe-2 were also more useful.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2005)

I think the most useful aircraft they had was the Il-2.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2005)

It was the most produced. My fav Russian aircraft was the La-5/-7. The thing looked good, flew well, and had considerably more punch than the average Russian fighter.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2005)

Nice lists. If I was gonna have any Russian aircraft it would be a MiG-3/7 for a decent high altitude fighter.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2005)

MiG-3/-7 were only any good at high altitude. And their fire power sucked.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 26, 2005)

There were field kits that put a couple of 12.7mm MG's is pods under the wings in order to try and improve that, but obviously peformance decreased with the extra weight and drag etc.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2005)

And still you are left with 3 x 12.7mm and 2 x 7.62mm vs. 3 x 20mm for the La-7.


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 26, 2005)

Doubt it since it owed a lot of its design to German designs and inovations.[/quote]

True. Still I am of the opinion that you only have a 4 to 6 month window of oportunity before the other guys come up with a response. It may not have been the Sabre but it still would have been a plane that would have worried the GAF.

:{)


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 26, 2005)

1.)Me-262
2.)He-219
3.)P-47N
4.)B-29
5.)C-47
6.)Ta-152H
7.)N1k2-J shiden kai
8.)Ki-84
9.)MC.205 veltro
10.)SAIA SM.79


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2005)

mc 205 AND sm79 OVER THE fW-190d-9 HUH???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2005)

Yeah I would not place them over a 190D either but everyone has there own list.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 28, 2005)

love the avaitar jcs...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2005)

Ofcourse you would!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 28, 2005)

He DOES have the Ta-152 though...MC.205 and SM.79 good though...


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 29, 2005)

I guess mine would be something like this:

P-38
B-29
B-25
Fw-190
Spitfire
Mossie
F4U
C-47
Yak-3
Ju-88

But these could just as easily be amoungst the 10

B-17
Lanc
B-24
G.55
Ki-100
F6F
La-7

As we reached the best possible piston engined limits there were a lot of planes there.

wmaxt


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 29, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I guess mine would be something like this:
> 
> P-38
> B-29
> ...


Good list wmaxt.

I agree on that last point as well by the end of WW2 there were a lot of decent piston engined aircraft around, so it is hard to choose (just personal favourites I guess).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

very few people are going for heavy bombers in their lists though which i think's a bit odd.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2005)

The B-29 would be in mine if I could be arsed to make one.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

i can't actually remember if i've made one yet 

i think i have and it was baisically the RAF..........


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 1, 2005)

Here's mine:

1) P38
2) B-25
3) P51
4) ME-109
5) B17
6) Spitfire
7) C47
8 ) Focke Wulf 190
9) Mosquito
10) B-29

Amongst these would also include:

Thypoon
P47
P40
He 111
JU87
F4U Corsair


----------



## GT (Oct 2, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

Nice lists P-38 and GT.



P-38 Pilot said:


> Thypoon


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 2, 2005)

GT, are those the models made by 21st Century Toys? Most of them look terrific!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 2, 2005)

> P-38 Pilot wrote:
> Thypoon


What?? It was a pretty good attack aircraft. It was like the P-47 or IL-2...


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> > P-38 Pilot wrote:
> > Thypoon
> 
> 
> What?? It was a pretty good attack aircraft. It was like the P-47 or IL-2...


That is a *Typhoon* not a Thypoon that is why it was funny.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 2, 2005)

ohhhh


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Great pics up there.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Great pics up there.


Yes they are nice pics GT.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 2, 2005)

Very detailed models! I especially like the ME-262.


----------



## hellmaker (Oct 10, 2005)

Spitfire(all models)
P-51 Mustang
P-38 Lightning
Mig-3
IAR-80 (  )
Bf-109
Fw-190
Ju-87 Stuka
P-61 Blackwidow


----------



## Erich (Oct 10, 2005)

GT you might want to remove the A-8/N pic motorcowling scan copyrighted by friend, artist Simon Schatz. I know he is not too keen on having his paintings-profiles downloaded to other sites. A/C from 1./NJG r 10 one of the few in the staffel using the FuG 218 Neptun radar and strange antler fittings. flown by ace Ofw. Migge


----------



## Erich (Oct 10, 2005)

interesting guys as at least some have done some homework on their personal favourites.

I still think the Mossie XXX for the Allies and the Ju 88G-6 for the Luftwaffe as the best night fighters. don't think anything else comes close except the Me 262A-1a but the range was too short.

The Me 262A seems to be best suited for bomber destroying work and not fighter vs fighter over the Reich.

for Fighters it would be the P-51K and the Bf 109G-10. The Ta 152H although a favourite of mine was in too few a number and cannot be thoroughly judged, except if the war had continued two more years, 109's Doras would of been replced by jets and even the Ta 152H would of been phazed out overall. Even thought of the heavy SturmFw A-8/R8 but again it was a US pulk destroyer not well liked at all for facing P-47's or P-51's

For heavies yes the late mark Lanc and the B-17G

the Ju 88A comes to mind being used from wars start to end and evolving in the bomber-recon roles and did seem for the Luftwaffes arsenal to be fit for the overall best in machines. did not have the long range, altitude nor heavy payloads to be considered in the big boy bomber category.

Recon I will still throw the hat in for the Ju 290A but this was the thought for an a/c being used over the water..............a host of other greats could be added here.

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2005)

Erich said:


> I still think the Mossie XXX for the Allies and the Ju 88G-6 for the Luftwaffe as the best night fighters. E ~



Agreed 100% I also really like the Ju-88 because of it versatility. It may not have been the fastest or most maneuverable aircraft but it was an all around great plane.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 11, 2005)

Great pics of grat models. I love detailed models like that. 

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 12, 2005)

Erich said:


> I still think the Mossie XXX for the Allies and the Ju 88G-6 for the Luftwaffe as the best night fighters.
> 
> E ~



Agreed. But this in mind my fav is still the P-61 Black Widow. Sometimes I am a sucker for strangely shaped planes and the turret was the bomb. I know they had bad teething problems especially in the ETO but from what I have read they were loved by thier crews. Additionally, while they mostly fought over the Pacific the night fighter versions of the Corsair and Hellcat were pretty successful designs. 

:{)


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 12, 2005)

from a nationlistic point of view aircraft made in canada
hurricane x
mosquito fb26
lancaster x 
bristol bolingbroke
noorduyn norseman
at6 harvard
ccf goblin
canadian vickers delta
helldiver


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 14, 2005)

In no particular order, my list is something like this...

• Focke-Wulf Fw-190A
• Focke-Wulf Fw-190D
• Piaggio P.108
• Fiat G.50
• Fiat G.55
• Fiat Br.20
• Reggiane Re-2000
• Reggiane Re-2005
• Lockheed P-38 Lightning
• Boeing B-29 Superfortress


----------



## trackend (Oct 14, 2005)

FW190
Dakota
Spitfire
ME262
P38
F4U

B29
Hurricane
ME109
JU52
Mossie


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 14, 2005)

He loves the P-38 so much he put it twice.


----------



## trackend (Oct 14, 2005)

Oh crap Ill take it off, Bleeding hell you dar'nt make a mistake on here it was only posted for 2 mins before I was pounced on. 
There you go happy now CC ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 14, 2005)

Im never happy.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 14, 2005)

So I have noticed...


----------



## trackend (Oct 14, 2005)

To much Cheese and not enough sleep


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 14, 2005)

trackend


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 14, 2005)

trackend said:


> To much Cheese and not enough sleep



Too much combining the two.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2005)

To much cheese and not eneogh Cheddar.


----------



## kleinnak (Oct 14, 2005)

I personally cannot decide on a list myself, but with all the talks of the ju 88s versatility, it's a crime to focus on just it and not the mosquito in the same respect. there's not a single role the ju 88 did that the mosquito could not do and did not do, and in fact did more. day and night bomber, day and night fighter/intruder, attack plane, anti-shipping, photo-reconnaissance, list goes on. admittedly it DID NOT get used in a similiar programs as the whack-headed mistel composites...but that was just rather dumb altogether. more desparation than practicality. although the biggest disservice is the lack of mention of the Halifax. true it didn't have the same amount of fame as the Lancaster, and didn't carry the same bomb-load, but it was all around a far more versatile plane. they used it for everything from transport, bomber, paratroops, pathfinding, electronic countermeasures, anti-submarine patrol, again the list goes on. gotta remember that best doesn't necessarily mean the most coverage and fame. afterall the spitfire is remembered as the plane of the "Few" but it was the hurricane that shot down more aircraft in the BoB than all other british fighters and anti-aircraft batteries combined. Just throwing that out there.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 14, 2005)

Wow... He has a point about the Mosquito.


----------



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

although i diassagree with him on the lanc being less versatile than the Halibag, the lanc did perform numerous anti-shipping roles post war, the only reason she didn't do it during the war was because bomber command was getting them all because they were in such high demand, Halibags weren't in such high demand so coastal command got a few...........

and on this site we all realise and regularly speak about the hurricane's achievements during the battle of britain.........


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 15, 2005)

Okay new list: (No order)

1) P38L Lightning
2) B-17G Flying Fortress
3) P51D Mustang
4) Spitfire Mk.V
5) C-47 Dakota
6) ME-109E
7) FW-190D
8 ) Mosquito Mk.VI
9) B-25 Mitchelle
10) ME-262


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2005)

kleinnak said:


> although the biggest disservice is the lack of mention of the Halifax. true it didn't have the same amount of fame as the Lancaster, and didn't carry the same bomb-load, but it was all around a far more versatile plane. they used it for everything from transport, bomber, paratroops, pathfinding, electronic countermeasures, anti-submarine patrol, again the list goes on. gotta remember that best doesn't necessarily mean the most coverage and fame.



And how was the Halibag more versatile than the Lancaster. The Lancaster could do all that the Halibag did and do it better. As a matter of fact it did do more and better.



P38 Pilot said:


> 6) ME-109E



You do know that the ME-109E was actually a Bf-109E. The 109's never actually took the designation Me. I sometimes catch myself typing Me but it really is Bf.


----------



## kleinnak (Oct 15, 2005)

okay, will concede i was a bit excessive on the halifax. and i wasn't implying the hurricane was being unnoticed on this site, i was just throwing that out as a common one i've seen over the years, shoulda been more specific there. i will admit that a bit of my own personal biases were coming through on that post, as my tastes in aircraft leans towards those that were good yet didn't get the fame. just got carried away from the mosquito part :-S. i'll watch that from now on.


----------



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

don't worry we all show bias, i for example think the lanc should win all the best fighter compititions, she's manouverable, carries allot of electronic warfare equiptment, heavy damage tollerance huge ammo count, but whenever i suggest it the big guys laugh at me


----------



## kleinnak (Oct 15, 2005)

lol! there is merit in that, can't argue that about the lanc, however i personally would discard the .303s in exchange for .50s. my personal favorite plane of all time has to be a tie between the beaufighter and the p-47 (which made me feel really bad playing il-2:fb last night when i came across some while flying the ta 152 campaign :-S, i'd been really looking for some mustangs to blast instead *sad sigh*). though i'm stalwart in my stance that the mosquito should be right at the top of the list. the problem with a best aircraft of ww2 list is that frankly...aircraft roles in ww2 were so diverse, liason, light bombers, heavy bombers, fighters, attack planes, cargo planes, interceptors...and most planes were made to be the best at one to two roles. so for me, to pick a plane to be the "best" should be the planes that were not only extremely adaptable to many different roles, climates, etc, but excelled at many different roles and such. which to me means planes such as the mosquito, ju 88, lancaster, halifax, spitfire (some squadrons used them to ferry kegs of beer for pete's sakes) fw 190, p-47, B-24, the Yak series, and the Pe-2/3 series. although i have to say that hands down the best aircraft built for a specific purpose in the war had to be the fieseler storch for liason/artillery spotting. excellent visibility, decent speed for its size and power, actual defensive armament, incredible take-off/landing capabilities (rumour has it Fieseler himself could land them almost vertically in the right conditions :-S). but i can't count it as one of the best overall, as pretty much that was all it was good at. but it was definitely the best aircraft built to one purpose in my mind.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

I will agree with you on that. Most of the "best" aircraft were adaptable to a good many roles and most of the aircraft that you posted in your list there I would agree with on. Its been a while since you were posting on here hasn't it?


----------



## kleinnak (Oct 16, 2005)

quite a while as a matter of fact...to be totally honest...these are my first...:-S, i've been a member for a while, but i wasn't big into forums at the time and actually forgot i was a member until i came across this site by accident again. so...these are my first posts


----------



## kleinnak (Oct 16, 2005)

*side note* i agree with you too on the Bf designation thing, that bugs me quite a bit to read :-S especially when i see it in books and tv and other sources that are supposed to be "scholarly"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

The whole Bf thing really does not bother me, I just like to note it incase people may not know the truth behind it. I as a matter of fact sometimes make the mistake and write Me-109 instead of Bf-109. I know the difference and which one is write I just sometimes make the mistake, I just dont know if he knows that or not.


----------



## kleinnak (Oct 16, 2005)

ahhh, gotcha, it does for me but i'm just a stickler for accuracy that way . and a lover of the 109 at heart, so again...bias i s'pose. i guess it does bug me a lot more when i see it in a book or something like that, because those are the places that are supposed to get those things right.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

The old Bf-109 is my favorite aircraft from WW2. The G-6 to be exact. It was not the fastest or the most maneuverable. I just love the way she looks and what she meant to the Luftwaffe.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The old Bf-109 is my favorite aircraft from WW2. The G-6 to be exact. It was not the fastest or the most maneuverable. I just love the way she looks and what she meant to the Luftwaffe.



Here here. I think that best, historically, and best, as in my fav, are two different things. I love the Corsair. Its faults were many and it may have not been the best carrier borne craft in the war, but its still my fav nonetheless. 

:{)


----------



## trackend (Oct 24, 2005)

The best, I still like the later Spitfire's the Jug the Corsair
mmmmm I wonder what my favorite plane of WW2 is  
Nothing to do with kills, perfomance ect I just love the shear bottle of the guys who flew them and tales of David and Goliath that endears the Stringbags to me. Even the blokes who used them took the piss but loved the character and reliability of these out moded but effective old biplanes.


----------



## kleinnak (Oct 24, 2005)

Amen to that, Trackend! it takes a special kind of plane to be able to outlast all its wartime successors in service, lol.


----------



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

there are stories of spitfires and other more advanced planes letting stringbags land ahead of them out of respect, they truely are remarkable planes........


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2005)

Out of respect, or out of the feeling it would drop out of the sky at any moment?


----------



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

fair point............


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 26, 2005)

pD!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

LOL that is funny!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 29, 2005)

Good one PD! Im not much of a German Aircraft person but the Bf-109 was a very good aircraft. I like the design and look of the Fw-190 the best though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2005)

you do of course mean the -190A??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

No he means the Dora, Lanc stop tryign to corrupt him.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 1, 2005)

Still my question to y'all is this, and this is as good as any thread to post this since the Stringbag is my 2nd fav torp bomber with the Avenger being no.1. (A previous post with pics of Swordfishes reminded me of this question) I was watching "Sink the Bismark" which I love. But I was watching the scenes where the RN sent in the Swordfish to attack the ship and came to these two observations/questions:

1. I have never got a satisfactory why the RN carriers had such a small air group on them. I know the RN carriers were smaller than USN ones but they were not that small.
2. With the awesome power of even a 1940 carrier, I am of the opinion, even with Devastators, a USN carrier, lets say the Enterprise, could have sent the Bismark, as unescorted as it was, to the bottom in record time. 

When I say these two observation/questions let me say that my readings have always centered on the USN or the IJN's carrier power not the RN so I am a little ignorant on this particular subject. I mean even in 1940 the USN had a full complement Wildcats, Dauntlesses, and Devastators. I know that the RN has navalized versons of the Hurri and Spit on thier carriers but why did they not develop a good naval divebomber or a modern torp bomber. Was it just a different form of thinking or philosophy that drove the RN? I hope I am making sense.

:{)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2005)

well pre-war the FAA had kinda been left behind, they weren't given much attention, most of the military aircraft industry was focused on the RAF, hence them not having their own purpose built carrier fighter (the B-24 and -25 don't count  )...........

and the carrier compliment depends on the size of the carrier, escort carriers can't take many of any aircraft but even with wings back the swordfish isn't small...........

and we'll never know if a US carrier could've done it quicker, but it was only about a week after the hood was suck that the bismark suffered the same fate, most of that time waqs spent finding her, once she was spotted it was all over in a day............

obviously i'm just trying to sound intelligent and not really know what i'm saying on most counts though  trakkie and some of the other guys will be able to tell you more........


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 1, 2005)

Swordfishes were big but they could not have been any bigger than a Avenger for example and they fit fine in old carriers such as the Enterprise and the Saratoga. I know that the air group depends on the size of the carrier but the Ark Royal or Illustrious we not any smaller than the smallest USN fleet carrier Wasp. My point is this, US and IJN carriers, even the Graf Zepplin, had more air power than a RN carrier. I know that on the Zepplin it was on paper but there were already Stukas and 109s with folding wings developed for it. All I am saying is, Hood or no Hood, if the RN carriers had the same air power as lets say the Enterprise, Yorktown, or Zuikkaku the Bismark would have not lasted too much longer after the 1st airstrike. 

What my question was is that the RN had the equipment, just wondering why not put them on carriers. I guess the Battleship mafia was still very much in power in England in 1940.

:{)


----------



## trackend (Nov 1, 2005)

The biggest single problem with the FAA at the outset of the war CurzonDax was the leadership, only very few commanders had much concept of the potential for carrier based planes or had indeed come from an aviation background (which was fairly normal in the USN)
The battleship was still viewed as the capital vessel and as such the carrier was badly used at first.
For example one commander when asked what he would do if confronted by an enemy fleet replied "steer straight for it", the concept of using the aircraft's long reach while staying out of range of the enemy's guns didn't even cross his mind.
As for aircraft capacity this is a cut and paste from the HMS Illustrious history and explains in fewer and clearer words than I could.



> The small number of aircraft carried was due to extensive armouring, including the flight deck. This was considered more important than aircraft capacity when operating close to shore based enemy aircraft. Indomitable's capacity was increased to 48 by completing her with a two-level hangar for half the length of the ship. All went through various war-time reconstructions including a slight increase in deck space, provisions for deck parking of aircraft which increased capacity to 54 and a large increase in AA guns.



This is a list of the aircraft carried by Illustrious during the war



> 1940: 33 aircraft: Fulmars and Swordfish
> September 1942: 21 Martlet, 6 Fulmars, and 18 Swordfish
> July 1943: 28 Martlets and 18 Avengers
> January 1944: 24 Corsais and 21 Barracudas
> ...



Another factor was that until lessons had been learned regarding launch and recovery of aircraft (mainly from USN advisors ) the slow times that it took the RN too fly off and recover their Squadrons (several minutes greater than that of the USN) meant spending far too long steaming into wind which with a large group of aircraft would place the carrier miles from the battle group.

You are right in your supposition that the Avenger is a larger aircraft than the Swordfish even with the wings folded the Avenger is I believe approximately 29ft wide as opposed the the Stringbags 17ft 3 and nearly a full 4 ft longer.
Although I still believe the Swordfish was the most successful anti shipping plane of WW2 in terms of tonnage sunk there is no doubt that the USN had by far the best carrier based aircraft of the war the few attempts made by the RN to obtain home grown decent fighters, dive bombers etc was not very successful. With a new concept of what carriers could do thanks to Taranto etc and having already adopted ideas from the USN the FAA became a different beast all together and later with planes like the Corsair at their disposal a match for any carrier force.
At the time of the Bismark (May 1941) six months after Taranto it was still however the admirals in charge of the Grand Fleet that ruled the roost besides I do not personally believe the Ark Royal had the fire power to sink the Bismark.

Hope that makes some sense CurzonDax and helps answer your questions

I shall now wait to have my post pulled to bits by all and sundry


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 1, 2005)

Trackend,
All of this does answer my questions, thanx. Still its amazing to me that the Captain of the Illustrious still did not send a wieghted Alpha Strike. I guess they were not thinking in those terms in the RN yet (I am sure Halsey and Yamamoto would have). 

Still, actually, and I have to research, I think it was the Dauntless that sunk the most tonnage from a carrier borne bomber. Will check it out. 

:{)


----------



## trackend (Nov 1, 2005)

Good luck Curzon finding out which aircraft was the most successful carrier based the Dauntless and the Swordfish are the front runners but getting the tonnage is bloody hard I have been in touch with the FAA records department and even they are having trouble. The problem is that a plane like the Swordfish laid mines as well and a ship sunk by a mine is still being destroyed by an aircraft carried weapon yet it is very hard kill to verify. I know during the Middle East campaign figures for the Swordfish floated around the 300,000 tonnes per month mark for direct kills, and in total I believe 13 subs with 11 assisted kills so with the Artic convoys, Atlantic, naval surface vessel kills ETO and some PTO work the figure must be pretty high.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> :
> 
> 1. I have never got a satisfactory why the RN carriers had such a small air group on them. I know the RN carriers were smaller than USN ones but they were not that small.
> 
> ...



Basically it depends on the space the aircraft can be put in. The aircraft have to have a place to park and be worked on. Ie. flight deck or hanger space under the deck. The carrier is not just a floating run way. It has to have crew space, engine compartments, etc. The US carriers were considerably bigger anyhow if you look at this. Now naturally this is not all the carriers by either country but just the major large Fleet Carriers.
*Royal Navy*

Implacable Class (2 built)
Length: 766ft 2in.
Beam: 95ft 5in.
Draught: 29ft 4in
Displacement: 32,000 tons
Crew: 2000
Aircraft: Over 60

Indomitable Class (1 built)
Lenght: 753ft 11in.
Beam: 95ft 9in
Draught: 22ft. 4in.
Displacement: 29,730 tons
Crew: 1600
Aircraft: Over 60

Illustrious Class (3 built)
Length: 753ft
Beam: 95ft
Draught: 24ft.
Displacement: 23,000 tons
Crew: 1600
Aircraft: Over 60

Colossus Class (6 built)
Length: 630ft
Beam: 112ft (across flight deck)
Draught: 21ft. 4in.
Displacement: 13,350 tons
Crew: 854 (excluding air crews)
Aircraft: 39 to 44

*US Navy*

Midway Class (3 built)
Lenght: 968ft.
Beam: 136ft.
Draught: 32ft 9in.
Displacement: 55,000 tons
Crew: 4085
Aircraft: 137

Essex Class (24 built)
Length: 888ft
Beam: 93ft
Draught: 29ft.
Displacement: 33,000 tons
Crew: 2900
Aircraft: 82 (103 can be carried)

Compare just the Beam of the ships. Midway calass 136ft to the Indomitable class 95ft.


----------



## trackend (Nov 1, 2005)

True Adler If you have a smaller box you cant fit more in I know the spare engines and large items on the RN carriers where stored hanging from the deck heads but never the less with the steel fire curtains, fuel supply sprinkle systems plumbing, plus the need to keep the access ways clear, it was not the largest of areas to work on aircraft.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 3, 2005)

If the Illustrious could hold 60 aircraft, that is in addition to beans, bullets, and engines, but in a previous post she only had 30 aircraft in 1940, was the RN going through that much of a lack of qualified carrier pilots? I guess in 1940 they did not have in place the USN's reserve system. Also from what I have been researching it seems that throughtout the war the carrier arm seemed to be the RN's poor relation.

I guess if the Bismark had been facing Halsey in the Enterprise the Bismark episode would have been more of a side note in WWII history. With no aircover to speak of even the Devastators would probably have been successful. DOH! damned USN torps and thier stoopid magnetic exploders.

:{)


----------



## trackend (Nov 3, 2005)

The British used Duplex triggers CD on many of their torpedos which worked really well enabelling the weapon to explode on contact or if set too deep, underneath the vessels keel these worked very effectivley at Taranto even though the inner habour was shallow.
That said nothing in the torpedo field was as effective as the Japanese Long Lance.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 3, 2005)

True, true. Even the Germans were having the same problems as the Americans with thier torps. 

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 3, 2005)

Now y'all probably are probably wondering why we, or at least I am anyways, are talking about carriers (or maybe not since you probably have a life and have more important things to do). When we talk about what are our top ten planes many of us talk about the seexy ones and forget the the BUFF (Big Ugly Flying F#*@kers) were the ones responsible for sometimes taking the fight to the badguys. Here is my top ten BUFF list, again in no particular order.

1. Henschel 129
2. Dauntless
3. Avenger
4. Swordfish
5. Blackburn Skua
6. P-61
7. Sunderland
8. Kawanishi H8K
9. PBY
10.Storch


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2005)

Good idea for a list I will have to think one up also.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 3, 2005)

A BUFF list...sounds good but I can only think of a few at this time, not in order:

Ummm... There isnt many planes I think are ugly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2005)

I can think of some that I personally think are hideous.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 4, 2005)

My top ten unsung heroes:
1. Bristol Beaufighter
2. Handley-Page Halifax
3. Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley
4. Short Sunderland
5. Short Stirling
6. Consolidated Catalina
7. Avro Anson
8. Bristol Blenheim
9. Hawker Hurricane
10.Douglas Dakota


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I can think of some that I personally think are hideous.



Oh yea. Some Pre-war french designs need to have the fashion police arrest thier designers.

:{)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2005)

Why you you think the Italians got it on it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2005)

To make just as hideous designs!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2005)

Pre-War Italian bomber... (Fiat BR.20)





Pre-War French bomber... (Bloch MB-200)


Yeah, the Fiat is really ugly  All Italian planes look good, however there are a couple that are offensively ugly, im not biased. However All French bomber are offensively ugly...(Pre-War anyway)


The joke I was making was that the Italians are known as the fashion police, which is why they launced attacks on France to kick-start their war campaign...Oh you know what I mean.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 4, 2005)

i think pre war french bombers look great!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 4, 2005)

You are in a small minority, they are some of the most hideous planes I have ever seen.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2005)

they're beautiful! i'll admit they aint no lanc but i wouldn't kick 'em outta bed..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 6, 2005)

Lanc, you're in a minority of one on this


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

Yes you are, and the minority is always wrong. Except in my case that is, because im always right.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think pre war french bombers look great!



Put down the crack pipe!


----------



## jrk (Nov 6, 2005)

1.tempest v
2.spitfire
3.hurricane
4.mosquito
5.fw-190
6.p-51
7.p-47
8.beaufighter
9.p-40
10.me-262


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Not a bad list. I would rate the P-47 higher than the P-51 and I deffinatly would have put a Bf-109 in there instead of a P-40 but that is just my opinion.

Here is my revised list but this is not the order yet, I have to think of the order:

Fw-190A/D
Bf-109G
Ju-88
Mossie
Spitfire
P-47D
B-17G
Lancaster
P-51D (historical reasons only)
C-47


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 6, 2005)

I think my choices are:

P-38
B-29
C-47
Mossie
F4U
Fw-190
B-25
Spitfire
P-47
Lanc

These are not in any order and mission wise others may be better.

Wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Not a bad list.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 6, 2005)

Nice lists guys.


----------



## jrk (Nov 7, 2005)

am i the only person who likes the tempest or something?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

I think it was a good plane, just not a fan of it.


----------



## jrk (Nov 7, 2005)

and then you met me


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Nope still not a fan.


----------



## jrk (Nov 8, 2005)

i know youre not but i am


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think pre war french bombers look great!



Also don't forget that the Russians had some pretty hideous designs. Also, opininon changed now to exotic, when I was little I thought that some of the German flying boat designs were abosolutly horrible to.

:{)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

german flying boats look great, early russian planes don't


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

I agree the Dornier flyingboats look awesome.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

the Blohm and voss ones do too........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

They were okay. I liked the Dornier better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

that's got beauty written all over it, if it works.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

I did not say it does not look good, I just like the Dorniers better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

fair enough, you always did have poor taste in planes, you know, given you don't like pre war french bombers.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

That shows me poor taste on your part.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

you kidding me they're works of art!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you kidding me they're works of art!


No, just you and your poor taste.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 9, 2005)

i got someone to agree with me today on how great they look!


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the Blohm and voss ones do too........



Hey I think NOW they look cool, its that just when I was little I thought, especially the Blohm and Voss ones, were fugly. Opinions change y'now exept when it comes to French Aviation. How can a country that can produce such hot women produce such ugly crates. It boggles the mind!

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 9, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > you kidding me they're works of art!
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i got someone to agree with me today on how great they look!



Yeah but Calum thinks the SA-80 is the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 9, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > i got someone to agree with me today on how great they look!
> ...


Lanc, questions: 
1) Are they blind?
2) Are they stupid? 
3) Did you show them a pic? 
4) Are they imaginary?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 9, 2005)

Argh damn there even uglier than the Fairey Hendon and thats pretty rancid


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i got someone to agree with me today on how great they look!



And they have bad taste too!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 10, 2005)

There's one French bomber that ain't ugly ...all the rest are f*ckin' circus ugly, lanc. French bombers are like the women you wake up next to the next mornin' and hope God kills you before she wakes up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Or you knaw your arm off so you can leave.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2005)

Or you pull out the 9mm from your bedside drawer and execute her. Ok maybe thats a bit too far but you get the point


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

LOL lets get this one back on topic before we go way out on a limb.


----------



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

Gnomey said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



he is not blind,
they are no stupid (i think liking french bombers actually makes him quite smart)
yes i showed them pics
and they're not imaginary

i challenge you to find a picture of an ugly french bomber!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Here you go, the top one is ugly as hell!


----------



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

i think it looks great.............


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 11, 2005)

Ugly French Bombers:





















Alright/OK Looking French Bombers:

































Good Looking French Bombers:




















Note none of the good looking ones served in French Airforce but in the Free French Airforce and were not built by French Companies.

Link to Free French Bombers: http://users.senet.com.au/~mhyde/ww2_aircraft_free_french.htm#bombers


----------



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

they all look great how can they be ugly!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> they all look great how can they be ugly!


The first five look seriously on the ugly side to me...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2005)

lanc you might wanna check this site out...

http://www.counselling.ltd.uk/ 

HOW, I repeat HOW do they look good??!!! A big sh*tty half glazed box for a fuselage and a smaller, sh*ttier box as a tail boom, with horrid French radials perched on the wing supports with messy fixed undercarriage looks good does it? Where are the curves? Where is the grace? At least all the parts of a Lancaster join up properly.


----------



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

but they do have curves! the fixed faired undercarraige looks great and the large glazed cabins look great!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but they do have curves! the fixed faired undercarraige looks great and the large glazed cabins look great!


Lanc you really do need some conselling, I would recommend the link CC gave it is really good. You must except that *FRENCH BOMBERS ARE UGLY!* (at least most of them were).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

LANC PUT THE CRACK PIPE DOWN AND STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD!!!


----------



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

I WANNA DECLARE TO THE WORLD THAT I THINK FRENCH BOMBERS LOOK GREAT!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2005)




----------



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

a work of art!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> a work of art!



so's this


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 12, 2005)

Lanc you are officially insane. Drop the joint and see the light. How can a rectangle with wings and engines with a greenhouse for a nose be good looking, the only thing it would be good for would be to get those plants that need to be grown in a greenhouse closer to the sun. Go and have a look at some good looking planes - Spitfires, Jugs, Mossies, Mustangs, FW190s and Lancs and stop looking at flying greenhouses. (You realise that I know longer take your opinion on planes looks seriously)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

there's only so much you can take of graceful curves, sometime you just wanna see a flying brick! and i think the big glazed cabins are one of their best features..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 13, 2005)

If you want to see a flying brick, go drop one out your window


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

LOL

Lets just say Lanc is exentric like the planes he likes.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 13, 2005)

LOL  MM. I could agree with that Alder.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 13, 2005)

Damn Lanc! French bombers suck donkey balls!! How can they be beautiful?????

I really think you have been smoking to much crack.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2005)

He doesnt just smoke crack, he penetrates it too, but thats another story...

I really dont know how you think those abominations are good looking and Fw-190D's arent...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

maybe that's why i don't like fighters that much, i prefer bigger parhaps less grateful machines, either way, french bombers look great..........


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2005)

> either way, french bombers look great..........


Yea, to a blindman in an oversized raincoat...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> maybe that's why i don't like fighters that much, i prefer bigger parhaps less grateful machines, either way, french bombers look great..........



He is overcompensating for something.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 13, 2005)

On the other hand, I tried to find it on the warbird/museum pics, have any of these French birds been kept for posterity? I mean is there at least a museum somewhere with these aircraft in exhibit. If so, I still would like to see how they look through a modern lens. They may be fugly crates but one must admit they are fasinating to look at and marvel how they even made it into the air.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

Good question. I am sure that some survived somewhere and are in some museum.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 14, 2005)

I just spent about an hour looking at all of the French and Belgian aircraft museum site. There is a smattering of French fighters, observation aircraft, and trainers but no bombers. As an aircraft lover I am appalled that none of these aircraft were preserved. 

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

I believe I have seen a D.520 in the Sinsheim Museum.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 14, 2005)

Not many nations seem to have had the "keep something of everything" attitude to WW2 vehicles that the US had. Possibly its just a function of national wealth and personal luxury.

The only surviving Typhoon (and even then some parts of it are "fudged") is the one that was transported to the US for testing than returned to the UK inthe mid 60's. US citizens could even buy cast off P-51s, P-38s, P-40s and P-47s after the war, for incredibly small amounts. Therefore, there are quite a few of them about. 
Countries like Germany, France, Britain, Japan and even Russia seem to have a very schizophrenic relationship with the war. Because of the large amounts of suffering inflicted on their general populations they seem to want to forget the war, while at the same time not trying to diminish their accomplishments on the field of battle. They seem sad, ashamed and proud all at the same time. Having lived and worked in Japan and America and spent 8 months living in the UK, it struck me that Americans are generally lot more 'gung-ho' about the WW2 and the role they played in it.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 14, 2005)

I guess the preservation of history in the US is a sort of pack rat mentality. I know that here we have WWII museums for both our greatest victories, defeats, and even our greatest errors and abuses. Yes I do agree that Americans are more gung ho about WWII. I agree its from the fact that the war really never physically reached here, U-Boats and Japanese fire ballons non-withstanding. 

On the other hand there are still many Allied, Red Airforce, and Luftwaffe planes still flying in an airshow somewhere every weekend. I understand why there are not that many JAF aircraft but, and I am ignorant of the role of the French Air Arm during the occupation and its role in Vichy, you think there would be more WWII aircraft at least preserved in museums. There are Enough SPADs and Nieuports even here in the US to even have flying museums. But the French won that one. 

Just thinking.

:{)
:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2005)

If you ever get the chance to go to the German go to the Deutsches Musuem they have Me-262's, Bf-109E, Bf-109G, Me-163, He-162, Do-335, Ar-232, Ju-88, Ju-52/3m, Do-17, He-219, Bf-110, Fw-190A, Ju-87, Hs-129, Ar-196, Do-24, Ba-349, V-1 and V-2 Rockets. That is just what I can remember off the top of my head and just the German Aircraft. They also have a slew of WW2 British and American aircraft. Very good museum I might add for natural history and what not. It is basically the German version of the Smithsonian Institute. They have a partnership with the Smithsnonian Institute and share there things all the time. I recall the Do-335 being on loan to the National Air and Space museum for quite some time. It might be back in Germany now because I did not see it in Febrauary when I was in Washington D.C.


----------



## crowdpleaser (Nov 15, 2005)

hi peepz ive been in a museum in holland (airbase soesterberg)
this airbase was active in and after ww2 and had primarilly p-51s and british aircraft, do not expect many aircraft because the dutch airforce is the the theme.

they have a lot of fokkers (d-21s and more) a spit, p-51 and an avro anson, and dc-3 and a few jet fighters like the sabre and starfighter.

Its an nice museum with a lot of beautiful paintings and scale models.

And u better check this link to see there collection.

greetings

crowdpleaser!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 15, 2005)

Very cool! Any chance of posting some pics?!?


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 15, 2005)

I recall the Do-335 being on loan to the National Air and Space museum for quite some time. It might be back in Germany now because I did not see it in Febrauary when I was in Washington D.C.[/quote]

I think the Arado Blitz Bomber that is in NASM is also thier's. I really would love to go to a museum that has other aircraft besides the ubiquitos P-51 and USN aircraft. 

:{)


----------



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

i'd like to go to any aircraft museum  the on;y one relatively close is the fleet air arm museum, i've been to an airshow there but never into the museum...........


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 16, 2005)

I feel your pain. I would love to go to the Dayton airshow and USAF Museum but everytime I say "I am going THIS year" a disaster strikes.

:{(

PS Now there is a good thread, the strengths and deficiencies of aircraft museums in our respective countries. I would especially like to hear what our Eastern European friends have to say about the museums in thier countries.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> I recall the Do-335 being on loan to the National Air and Space museum for quite some time. It might be back in Germany now because I did not see it in Febrauary when I was in Washington D.C.



I think the Arado Blitz Bomber that is in NASM is also thier's. I really would love to go to a museum that has other aircraft besides the ubiquitos P-51 and USN aircraft. 

:{)[/quote]

I think you are right also. I remember seeing a sign at the Blitz exhibit.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 16, 2005)

If you can get only 1 shot at seeing any one museum in the US, the Smithsonian should be the one, just remember to check out the auxiliary site ehere many aircraft are located.

The AF museum in Dayton/Wright-Patterson AFB is great, with many German and a couple of Japanese aircraft. I went several times and could go many more times, there is enough there you can't more that glance at the planes in 8 hours. Also the X planes and Pesidential planes are there too.

wmaxt


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm lucky, when I'm not at uni I have Duxford on my doorstep, it hasn't got many VVS, JAF or Luftwaffe planes though


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 16, 2005)

I am an airplane museum junkie. It drives my wife sort of nuts when we go on road trips we have to stop in some podunk airplane museum. Still some of these museums are suprising. I have been to the standards like the NASM and the USN museum in Pensacola, but some of these out of the way museums have suprises in them too. 

:{)


----------



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

the south west of england has barely anything aviation related, the fleet air arm museum is the only thing worth visiting, well, it's the only thing to visit


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2005)

The South West doesnt even know that aviation has been invented yet...


----------



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

don't tell Westland that.........


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 17, 2005)

The Hamilton RCAF museum has an excellent collection of restored planes, Ive been there, then I moved back to Edmonton, god dammit I had taken a sweet number of pictures of a restored Halifax bomber, CF-100 Canuck, Hawker Hurricane, they had a Lancaster outside, an old Sikorsky helo, CF-104,CF# Voodoo, CF-5 Freedom ect but I lost the damn film and never found it when I think about it god I should go back to Ontario just to retake those pictures.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 17, 2005)

Well get movin', boy!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> If you can get only 1 shot at seeing any one museum in the US, the Smithsonian should be the one, just remember to check out the auxiliary site ehere many aircraft are located.



I agree great musuem. I also got a chance to see the auxiliary in February with the Space Shuttle Enterprise, SR-71, Concorde, Ar-232, and so many other aircraft. It is in my opinion the best museums followed by the Sinsheim and Deustsches Museums.


----------



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

there's a concorde in the Fleet air arm museum, someone died once when they fell of the steps up to it........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

They have the Concorde also at the Sinsheim Museum along with the Tupeleve Russian Concorde (I can not remember the name of it)


----------



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

Tu-144??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Yes that is it, thankyou.


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 21, 2005)

Actually I am glad that the Dayton museum has taken control of the Memphis Belle. She was in sad shape. Details at 11, gotta get back to work.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 21, 2005)

About the Belle, she was kept in a outside pavilion, sort of exposed to the weather and to birds and bats and their destructive ways. When I was trying to unsuccessfully trying to put her on the National Registry of Historic Places you could not walk on her port wing because there was danger that it could fall, two of her engines were so siezed that the props could not even turn by hand, a lot of her instruments were missing or had been stolen and so on and so on. She is an early F version but what made her unique was that she had many E qualities to her. I tried to put her in the registry but she was seen as just another Fort and the effort failed.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2005)

I actually go to the Memphis Belle website and they show some pictures of the restoration. She was in a sad shape.


----------



## p51#1wwii (Jan 25, 2009)

11: FW190
10: Mess162
9: Mess163 Komet
7: P40 Warhawk
6: Zero
5: P47 Thunderbolt
4: P38 Lightning
3: P81 Twin Mustang
2: B24 Liberator
1: P51 Mustang (duh!)


----------



## Waynos (Jan 25, 2009)

For a list of ten favourite/Greatest aircraft I reckon I would have to go for the following, without the added difficulty of putting an order on it;

Spitfire
Mosquito
Beaufighter
Lancaster
Corsair
Avenger
Fw190
Bf 109
B-17
P-51........

Damn, 10 is nowhere near enough!

Still, it would have to be bloody long list before I put the Bf 162 on it  (I suppose you really meant to say 262?)


----------



## claidemore (Jan 25, 2009)

Spitfire Mk IX and XIV (does that count as one or two?)
KI-43 II/III Oscar
Yak 1b
FW190 D9
Bf109G-2
Martlet/Wildcat
Tempest V
Macchi-202/205
P40E/K
Mustang I

Not necessarily the 'best' planes, but the ones I find the most interesting.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 25, 2009)

I'm going to go with Claidemore's method here, and choose the ones I am most interested in, and they happen to be good, so I'm going to give reasons.

F4U - Great multirole aircraft, as well as a superb fighter, finally gave the Marines something that could outfight the Zero.
Fw 190 - Another great multirole aircraft, outclassed the Spitfire when it first came out was at or near the top for the rest of the war.
Me 262 - Need I say more?
La-5/La-7 - Great fighter.
Mustang - As overrated as I think it is, it was still a great aircraft and was the plane that finally escorted the bombers to and from Germany.
Spitfire - Just a superb aircraft!
Tempest V - ^^
Bf 109 - While I don't think anything past the F should have been produced, it was still a great aircraft and did compete until the end.

I know it's not 10, but I ran out of ideas hah!


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2009)

So many planes, so few spots on the rooster 

1. P-47
2. Bf-109
3. Hurricane
4. Hellcat
5. P-51
6. Mosquito
7. Zero
8. Ju-88
9. Pe-2
10. Avenger 

No Spitfire on my list


----------



## claidemore (Jan 27, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> So many planes, so few spots on the rooster
> 
> 1. P-47
> 2. Bf-109
> ...



But it's important enough to make special mention.


----------



## Juha (Jan 27, 2009)

My favourites:
Curtiss P-36
NA P-51B/C Malcolm hood
Spitfire VIII/XIV
Hawker Tempest V
DH Mosquito
Bf 109E-4/F-4/G-10
Focke-Wulf 190A-4/D-9
Boeing B-17
Lavochkin La-7
Mitsubishi J2M

Runner ups: P-47D-25/M, B-29 and Nakajima Ki-84.

For top 10 I would put P-47 in place of P-36, B-29 in place of B-17 and Ki-84 in place of J2M.

Juha


----------



## ksilber11 (Jan 27, 2009)

Hmmm no particular order

1. P-38 Lightning
2. F4U
3. BF-109 G or E
4. FW-190 A-8/R-8
5. P-47
6. SBD
7. A6M Zero
8. ME-163
9. F6F 
10. Me-110


----------



## fly boy (Jan 27, 2009)

p-51d 
c-47
p-47d
me-262
spitfire
hurricane
bf-109
fw-190
F4U
SB2C
b-17g
b-29

this is in no order what so ever


----------



## Watanbe (Jan 29, 2009)

F4U (best American fighter of the war)
P51 (over rated but had large impact)
Spitfire (from start to finish was one of best fighters)
Tempest (Brilliant piston fighter, fast, well armed)
Mosquito (excellent excelled in many roles)
Ju88 (as above)
Me109 (competitive from start to finish, workhorse)
FW190 (amazing fighter plane, superb at everything)
B-24 (under rated and ugly, dependable worker)
Lancaster (great plane, loads of bombs dropped)

Honourable mention:
Beaufighter
B25
B29 
P47
Yak 9
Lagg 7

In a list of its own as greatest plane of all time C-47 (logistics, logistics, logistics, hardy)


----------



## seesul (Jan 29, 2009)

P-51D
P-38
B-17
SBD
F6F
F4U
FW190A-8
BF109G-6/AS
TA152H
Spit Mk.IX


----------



## Amsel (Jan 29, 2009)

Off the cuff...

F6F

B-17

Me 109

Spitfire

F4U

Hurricane

P-40

Fw 190

B-29

Lagg


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jun 26, 2009)

(No order)
1.Me 410 Hornet
2.Bf 110 
3.P-39N
4.Fw 189
5.Fw 200 Condor
6.A-20 Havoc
7.Bristol Beaufighter
8.Ki-43 1c
9.P-400
10.P-63 Kingcobra


----------



## diddyriddick (Jun 27, 2009)

Hmmm...These are my 10 favorites for right now.

1. P-51 D or later
2. F4U
3. B-17
4. B-26
5. FW-190
6. Spitfire
7. F4F
8. ME-262
9. SBD
10. Stuka


----------



## Watanbe (Jun 27, 2009)

1. Mosquito
2. Beaufighter
3. B-17
4. Tempest
5. FW-190
6. Spitfire
7. P-47 D or later
8. B25 Mitchell
9. Lancaster
10. JU-88 (nightfighter versions especially)


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2009)

My ten favorites:

1. Me262A1/a Me262A1/U4
2. Fw190A-8
3. P-36A
4. SBD-5
5. F4F-3
6. He100D-1
7. Ar196A-5
8. Ju87G-2
9. Bf109G-2
10. MC.202


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 27, 2009)

My ten, not in order:

1, Ju 87
2. P-47
3. Piaggio P.108
4. Me 262
5. Bristol Beaufighter
6. B-25
7. Hawker Typhoon
8. Kyushu J7W1/2 "Shinden"
9. De Havilland Mosquito
10. Fokker G.1

This was actually harder then I thought it was going to be.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 28, 2009)

My ten in order:

1) F4U Corsair
2) P-47 Thunderbolt
3) Supermarine Spitfire
4) A6M Zero
5) P-51 Mustang
6) ME-109
7) Focke Wulf 190
8 ) F4F Wildcat
9)B-17 Flying Fortress
10)F6F Hellcat


----------



## trackend (Jun 28, 2009)

1: C47
2: B29
3: P51
4: Spitfire
5: ME 109
6: Lancaster
7: Harvard
8: Mosquito
9: Corsair
10: Dauntless SBD


----------



## drgondog (Jun 29, 2009)

Sigh -

In no order
C-47
Me 262
Spifire XIV
P-51B
F4U
Ju 88
B-29
Mosquito
Ta 152 (or Fw 190D)
TBF

with Honorable Mention to Yak 9, Me 109G, Hurricane, Lancaster, SBD, FW190A, Ki 84, Zero, P-47D-25 or above, P-38J-25 or above, B-17, B-24 , Feisler Storch, AT-6, and a lot of others.

I tried to think about them in context of Best in Class which by definition took out a lot of famous aircraft. Fighters dominated because WWII was about control of the air - to get control of the war.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 29, 2009)

Bf109
P-47
Spitfire
Ju88
B-17
Mosquito
Me262
C-47
IL-10
P-51D

And I ran out of room for all the Naval aircraft.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jun 29, 2009)

No Order:
Il-10
Ju-88
P-40
B-17
Me-262
PBY Catalina
P-47
P-51
Hurricane
Me-109


----------

