# Do You Have an Illogical Hatred of an Aircraft?



## Waynos (Jul 17, 2009)

On another thread a poster has 'confessed' a hatred for the P-51 and another poster, not unreasonably, has questioned the root of this hatred.

It's an interesting question and one I could ask myself, although 'hate' is a strong word in my case. 'Ambivalence' is more appororiate, perhaps.

I never had a problem with the P-51 as a boy. I greatly admired it, and the B-17 too, and the linking of the two brings us closer to the reason in my case.

Its definitely not through any fault of the planes themselves, its more of a knee jerk reaction to many years of being 'told' that the B-17 and P-51 were 'the planes that won the war, boy. Yes siree!'

The utter disdain this sentiment has for the contribution of everything else really gets my back up and so after years of conditioning I now see these aircraft almost as a symbol of the 'ignorant American' and the great 'We Saved You - you did nothing' attitude that stinks in my nostrils so much.

Please don't misunderstand. I am perfectly aware of the vital part the US played in first helping Britain survive and then in taking the fight back to Germany. Its true that without America, we couldn't have done it. But some people cannot understand that the opposite is also true and while these puerile few are hammering their point home they always seem to cite the B-17 and P-51 to back up their statement. Maybe because they are the only planes they actually know? And I know its not fair or rational but it has coloured my views of these two great aircraft and thats what this thread is for.

I also greatly dislike the P-38 but that is because its ugly and spindly and the booms are too far apart, give me a Beaufighter - to look at - any day 

But how about you. Any irrational hatreds of your own that don't relate to anything logical like performance or death toll?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 17, 2009)

The Stuka for me.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2009)

not for me - my perspective is fairly objective (I suppose the engineer part takes over).

I think I understand bias against the Mustang or B-17 because of so much ignorant television documentaries stating 'best of breed', best fighter, savior of the world, I'm American and You are Not B.S.

I don't get upset about it. Historical facts are easy to look up, judgment is a different question.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 17, 2009)

I can understand someone hating the Stuka for what it did, or even what it represented, but would you like to pass on why your hatred is illogical syscom?


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2009)

When comparing WWII torpedo bomber performance I don't think it would make the top 10 list. The Stringbag might make the top 5 if the list is limited to only CV capable torpedo bombers. But you would never know it from reading popular histories of WWII.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 17, 2009)

B-29 Superfortress, I really don't know why but I can't stand it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2009)

I really do not think there is an aircraft that I "hate" for an illogical reason. I think there are plenty of aircraft that I consider overated (but that does not mean they were not great aircraft):

P-51 Mustang
A6M Zero
Ju 87 Stuka
B-17 Flying Fortress

All great aircraft in their own regards. I just think that many other aircraft that were just as good or better get overlooked because of them.


----------



## Stitch (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm with you, Waynos, on the whole "the B-17 the P-51 won WWII" thing; it ignores the contribution of not only other great a/c, but the other countries that built and flew the other a/c. The P-51 is the a/c that I "irrationally" hate the most, probably because everybody seems to think it was the greatest a/c of WWII, and I inherently dislike being told which a/c was the greatest (which, I suppose, is part of the reason the P-38 is my favorite a/c; a lot of people seem to NOT like it).


----------



## ssnider (Jul 17, 2009)

Spitfire, I get tired of being told it’s the most beautiful plane ever built when to me the tail is ugly.


----------



## BikerBabe (Jul 17, 2009)

The P-51.
It isn't that I _hate _it, it just doesn't _mean _anything to me, like the Supermarine Spitfire or the Messerschmitt Bf-109 does.
But hate?
Nope, I can't say that I hate any particular plane...or maybe I just hasn't run into the right kind of "wrong" plane yet.


----------



## imalko (Jul 17, 2009)

Spitfire and P-51 Mustang... Not that I hate them but I'm also tired hearing over and over again just how beautiful Spitfire is and how Mustang is the best of the best. Then again when Bf 109 is mentioned, its weaknesses are always pointed out - like if other aircraft were completely flawless. Also some good Soviet or other country's planes are not only neglected but often not even mentioned...


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jul 17, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I also greatly dislike the P-38 but that is because its ugly and spindly and the booms are too far apart, give me a Beaufighter - to look at - any day



The P-38 is a BEAUTIFUL fighter, especially the XP-38. The Beaufighter looks like some mutant insect experiment gone horribly wrong from some deranged evil scientist. Beauty and the Beast.

No disrespect of course.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 17, 2009)

I have to say I feel the same about the P-51. I don't hate it, I'm just sick of hearing about it. Plus I think its overrated.

Besides, everyone knows the Corsair was THE BEST PLANE EVER!!!!


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 17, 2009)

Its only illogical cause the aircraft was actually ahead of it's time. It just outlived it's usefulness:

Douglas TBD Devastator

.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 17, 2009)

I dislike all civil aircraft and 95% of helicopters . I dislike most general aviation aircraft mainly because I have to waste so much energy swivelling my head around to see whats flying over my head and helicopters because where I live they are a constant blight


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2009)

The only illogical hatred I could have for an aircraft is either the one I'm shooting at or the one shooting at me!


----------



## acerus (Jul 17, 2009)

Thorlifter said:


> Besides, everyone knows the Corsair was THE BEST PLANE EVER!!!!


Yeah, the Corsair is also my favorite followed by the P-47. 
I hate no Airplane but i dont like B-24´s....don´t know why....maybe its the Airframe.


----------



## diddyriddick (Jul 17, 2009)

Sorry, folks. This is like asking which beautiful woman I hate. I love 'em all!


----------



## comiso90 (Jul 17, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only illogical hatred I could have for an aircraft is either the one I'm shooting at or the one shooting at me!



nothing illogical about that.


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2009)

I don't have any hatred against any machine. That having been said there are ofcourse machines which I don't like (Mostly the ones which are dangerous pure deathtraps IMO), and then there are those which I am just completely tired of hearing about, and the P-51 falls in under that last category.

The P-51 was an awesome aircraft for its time, it really was, and it also helped a lot in the ETO because of its long legs. BUT it was far from the best fighter to grace the skies during WW2. IMHO the P-51 owes A LOT of its fame to its long range, everything else about it was completely conventional IMO. It was a good, solid and dependable fighter, which is exactly what the Allies needed. And so when some documentary states it as being the best of the best I feel they are misinforming people and are being kinda propagandistic. That bothers me abit cause it sometimes ruins an otherwise good show.

As for machines falling in under the first category, well Soviet tanks have a rather prominent place there. I mean they often look terrorfying and powerful, but looks can be very decieving. One thing is for sure, the Soviets didn't have much regard for human life!


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 17, 2009)

Hmmm... tough question. Not a hatred, just ambivalence. And I might not that this is just today. My ambivalence changes over time. Example, I list the Spit below, but used to just love it. I think that ambivalence stems from the same reasons Waynos started this thread. And one I use to have ambivalence that I now love is the He-111.

Fairey Battle
MiG-3
Spitfire
P-39
Whirlwind
Do-17
A-20


----------



## Waynos (Jul 17, 2009)

Some great responses there and very varied. Thanks guys thats just what I was hoping for. Except the blind guy who doesn't like the Beaufighter 

Mentioing the Fairey Battle and Whirlwind as you you did Matt 308, that puts me in mind of another equally illogical response. I really like these two aircraft and I think at least part of that is that I feel sorry for them, like some sort of pet. Now, how illogical is that?

Mention of the Spitfire also reminds me that I am one of those guilty of 'bigging up' the most beaufiful aeroplane ever made (sorry, I'll stop) so I suppose in many ways I'm no different to the 'Ignorant American' I cited in my first post 

I do of course very much recognise the actual greatness of the B-17 and P-51, taken in relation to the rest of course, but that strange illogical negativity is always there lurking in the back of my brain


----------



## Amsel (Jul 17, 2009)

Which aircraft I illogically hate really depends on my mood. Sometimes I can't stand the Spitfire. Though I can never hate the Me109.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 17, 2009)

Like a lot of folks here, I get sick of being told that the Spitfire won the BoB (although I think it is a gorgeous piece of engineering - I'm building two in 1/48 scale at the moment), and sick of being told that the P-51 was the greatest fighter ever (although, again, I find the RAF Mustang IIIs one of the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft of all time).

I also 'dislike' the A6M - I think this comes from when I played IL-2 online a lot (some years ago) and the A6M first appeared as part of a patch. For weeks, if not months, each and every serverwas full of noobs thinking they were amazing because their fighter turned better than yours, and crying that anyone who could shoot them down was cheating, or that the game was biased toward certain plane types  Now, how illogical a reason is THAT!!!


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2009)

I think - to put this in perspective - is that you will never find an Allied bomber crewman who 'hated' the Mustang or Spitfire; or 'loved' the 109 or 190 but they were ALL great fighters.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 17, 2009)

It's not that a hate any particular airplane, it's just I think there are a lot of planes that never received the proper recognition that they deserve, the Brewster Buffalo, Douglas Devastator, and Me 321 comes to mind.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 17, 2009)

Waynos, were you talking about me?


----------



## Coors9 (Jul 17, 2009)

The P-51D does nothing for me at all. I'd almost call it ugly. But, Show me a P-51B/C ,The prettiest thing with two wings. As for the Spit, the early tails were nasty to look at. The only one that i really like is the Mk VB,Tropical, That big snout looks so cool. The P-40B was such a sweet lookin' bird, The intake got bigger and it was down hill from there. I'd take any of them in a heartbeat though....


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 17, 2009)

The Me-262 is beutiful except for that ugly tail.


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2009)

It's also tiny compared to modern jet fighters. Small, fast and excellent high speed maneuverability. Had to be difficult to hit with WWII era weapons.

Then you have this monster at the other end of the size scale. A near sighted pilot who forgot his spectacles could score hits on the B-36. 






I visited the USAF museum a few years ago. Walking around the various aircraft gives you a great perspective as to aircraft size.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 17, 2009)

Is the P-38 as big as a modern day jet?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 17, 2009)

I agree that some aircraft stole the spolight from other, more deserving aircraft. Like BombTaxi mentioned, you'd think that the BoB was fought entirely by skies full of Spitfires and Bf109s when in reality, the British were putting everything they had up to stop the Germans, who also had a variety of types up there that rarely get mentioned.

I can't say I really hate any aircraft, although there are some I really don't care for, like the F6F Hellcat and the Corsair which to me, just look odd. Perhaps that's because I've liked the F4F since my childhood and saw the Corsair and Hellcat as the "evil" machines that replaced it. I know that's not logical and is just how things progress, but then again, I have always like the He100D and M.C202 because of thier looks and performance.

As far as the P-51D and B-17 goes, they're ok, but not my ultimate favorites...I prefer the Jug over the 'Stang and the B-29 and B-25 were always more of a favorite than any other bomber.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Is the P-38 as big as a modern day jet?



not even close. the F-22 is nearly twice as long and 4x as heavy. The F-105 was as big as a b-24 length wise and weight wise... and carry a lot more iron


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 17, 2009)

Are these jets more munuverable than a Me-262?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 17, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Are these jets more munuverable than a Me-262?


You just can't compare a Me262 against a modern day combat jet.

That's like trying to compare a Ju87G Stuka against the A-10 Warthog.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 17, 2009)

There is no such thing as a warbird that I hate be it a J3 or an P51 or an F4 they are all wonderful and I want to see them all , the sounds the smells the lines whats not to like , add into it the anecdotes of the guys that flew them and you have the things legends are made of.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 17, 2009)

I agree Pb, they all are awesome machines.


----------



## Auravir (Jul 17, 2009)

For some reason that I could never work out, I can't stand the Bf 109 G. I like the F but the G just irks me in some way.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jul 17, 2009)

Auravir said:


> For some reason that I could never work out, I can't stand the Bf 109 G. I like the F but the G just irks me in some way.



Maybe due to the bulges for the guns?

For me I would have to say the I-16. Its just butt ugly. Looks like they took a aircraft that was long and ran it into a mountain to give it that short stubby look. 


I do love the Beaufighter and the Bf-109E, G, and K though.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jul 17, 2009)

I don't really have an aircraft I hate. I find all the vintage aircraft fascinating, regardless of what it is.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 18, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> Are these jets more munuverable than a Me-262?



The F-22 and F-35 are probably much more manueverable due to the thrust vectoring and enormous power to weight ratio. I would be hard pressed to name a manuever the 262 (or Mustang) could use to gain an advantage of any kind


----------



## davparlr (Jul 18, 2009)

davebender said:


> Then you have this monster at the other end of the size scale. A near sighted pilot who forgot his spectacles could score hits on the B-36.



Well, not the pilot of the Me-262 since his service ceiling was almost a mile less than the B-36. Maybe some lob shots.

While not a WWII aircraft, I have always thought of the B-36 as a monstrosity which would have been butchered by Mig 15s in daylight raids over Russia. However, I play golf with a man who was a gunner on the B-36 in the early 50s and he said that fighters had very difficult time intercepting B-36s, which he said, flew above 50k ft., that was, of course, the six turning and four burning configuration.

I think I may have to reassess my opinion.

Interestly, he stated that, unless the aircraft was heading directly at the B-36, the guns would not even swing fast enough to track the fighters.

I always try to assess performance pretty objectively, again, an engineering trait. I don't really have a dislike.

Some thoughts. Overrated aircraft

Zero - way too slow for 1941 and to weakly armored, but great range.

F6F - I just feel it was too slow and opposition was weak, but was very successful.

Fw-190D-9 - Considered by many to be the best fighter plane of the war but it had a fatal weakness. It performed very well below 20k, but Germany really needed a high performer from 20-35k to stop those bombs from hitting them on the head. And, they needed it in early '44, not late '44. It would have performed good airfield cover for the highly superior Me-262, however.

P-51 - somewhat overrated by popular opinion. It was an excellent aircraft that was at the right place at the right time. However, there were other excellent aircraft often overshadowed by fanfare of P-51.


Underrated aircraft
P-40 - performed well at lower altitudes when flown by competent pilots.

B-26 - workhorse that fought in the meatgrinder of ETO with very good survival statisitics.

P-51 - by this forum. With superior speed and dive, very good climb, and competent to superior maneuverability, the P-51, at figther weight, pretty well outclassed enemy fighters from SL to 35k, from Fall, 1943 to Fall of 1944. Throw in the fact it could do this a 400 miles, and you have one impressive machine, even if you hate it.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2009)

I doubt they could place bombs within a 10km circle using 1945 bomb sight technology. Unless it's carrying nukes the Me-262 could ignore it.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 18, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> There is no such thing as a warbird that I hate be it a J3 or an P51 or an F4 they are all wonderful and I want to see them all , the sounds the smells the lines whats not to like , add into it the anecdotes of the guys that flew them and you have the things legends are made of.



Couldn't agree more pb. 

Love them all!

TO


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 18, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> pbfoot said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as a warbird that I hate be it a J3 or an P51 or an F4 they are all wonderful and I want to see them all , the sounds the smells the lines whats not to like , add into it the anecdotes of the guys that flew them and you have the things legends are made of.
> ...



Got to agree with both you, the anecdotes especially.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 18, 2009)

davebender said:


> I doubt they could place bombs within a 10km circle using 1945 bomb sight technology. Unless it's carrying nukes the Me-262 could ignore it.



Its a good thing since it wouldn't have much choice. But the B-36 was certainly capable of carrying the a-bomb. The Ta-152 would be a threat.


----------



## Glider (Jul 18, 2009)

Hate isn't the right word but a personal view on one from each country

British _ Barracuda what were they playing at when they designed this monster, ever seen one with its wings folded!!

Germany - Me109. It never seemed to look finished to me. The 109 A-E needed a strut to keep the tail in one piece, The F just looked fragile and the G with all those lumps and bumps,

USA- P39 it seems to look unbalanced and the idea of an emergency landing with the engine behind your head does not appeal.

Italy - Fiat G 50 the engine installation looks like an afterthought

Japan - Ki43 The wing always seemed to look as if it should be further back

Russia - Mig 3 looks to be all engine and no space for fuel or guns 

I know the above is unfair as all served well to a greater or lesser degree. The only qualification being the Mig 3 after all there was almost no room for the guns.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 18, 2009)

I love the EE Lightning for the same reason Glider dislikes the MiG-3. The whole thing was simply a system to get two missiles up to bomber altitude ASAP. Everything else looks like an afterthought added once the missiles had been attached to the engines. IMHO, it is the purest expression of the interceptor principle ever devised. There simply isn't another aircraft in existence which embodies such raw menace and aggresion - although the F-4 Phantom comes very close 8)


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2009)

Just so you know it guys the often quotes ceiling of ~11 km for the Me262 aint its' actual ceiling. According to original performance charts it's closer to 12.5 km at combat weight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> Just so you know it guys the often quotes ceiling of ~11 km for the Me262 aint its' actual ceiling. According to original performance charts it's closer to 12.5 km at combat weight.


Ceiling? Or is it service ceiling? I've looked at sources and the listed service ceiling at 11.5 km - 37,500 feet~


----------



## river (Jul 19, 2009)

Hi,

I love all aricraft, but I find some are less attractive than others.

I don't like many French aircraft. I am not sure why, but I feel the same way about their cars. They just don't look right. But, that's just my persoanl taste, and I can't put facts against it... I just don't like them. Which means I'm not an Airbus fan either.

I prefer props to jets, and when talking props I prefer piston engines to turboprops. I prefer radials to inlines. It's all just a personal preference.

Of the jets there are two that I really think look fantastic, and that is the F-104 and the XB70.

river


----------



## Njaco (Jul 19, 2009)

Don't really 'hate' any particular aircraft. But I will agree with some sentiments about the P-51. In my youth, it was my favorite, but like MJ and Springsteen, enough is enough. Too much about it, even for half researched docus on TV and in the media, the P-51 was the ONLY aircraft to be flying for the Allies. Now its just a respect for what it did and grateful it was there but no longer a favorite.

Although I don't hate them, I can not find anything to like about Russian aircraft. Ugly brutes.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 19, 2009)

Not even the La-5FN? She's purty.

Bf-109 is interesting to me. I LOVE the Emil, but find most other versions just okay. I do like the G though too, I s'pose.

Now the Fw-190. If her nose aint short, I aint likin' her. I just can't get past the D-9 changes of adding that long inline engine and then putting in that aft fuselage plug. Give me the A-8!!!!!


----------



## proton45 (Jul 19, 2009)

Me, hate a "fighter"(?)...never!

But for the sake of this thread I'll say the FW190...every "noob" who learns enough to fly one thinks they are "king-of-the-hill". Too many gunz too much ego...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2009)

proton45 said:


> But for the sake of this thread I'll say the FW190...every "noob" who learns enough to fly one thinks they are "king-of-the-hill". Too many gunz too much ego...




Heahh???


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 19, 2009)

Probably means Il-2.

And I'm pretty much in the same boat as Chris here, the Mustang used to be my fav but now all that's left is a respect for what it did, but I don't particularly like it anymore.


----------



## proton45 (Jul 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Heahh???




Sorry...I should have specified. I'm talking about playing "IL2".

Ja, "Catch22" is right....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 19, 2009)

There are aircraft like the B-52, the EE Lightning,the Republic F-105 Thud that I didn't much fancy when they first flew - but when they went into service and combat and they appeared camo'ed I began to really appreciate them. I am a sucker for camo 

Then there are aircraft like the P-47 and P-51 that I much prefer in their razorback greenhouse versions than the layer D+ variants.

And then there are aircraft like the P-39 Airacoba ... in a league by itself  

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2009)

proton45 said:


> I'm talking about playing "IL2".



Oh boy...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2009)

proton45 said:


> Sorry...I should have specified. I'm talking about playing "IL2".


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 19, 2009)




----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ceiling? Or is it service ceiling? I've looked at sources and the listed service ceiling at 11.5 km - 37,500 feet~



Service Ceiling FLYBOYJ, the height at which it can climb at 2 m/s. That's how the Germans defined service ceiling atleast.


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 19, 2009)

I'm saving that one!


----------



## davparlr (Jul 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> Just so you know it guys the often quotes ceiling of ~11 km for the Me262 aint its' actual ceiling. According to original performance charts it's closer to 12.5 km at combat weight.



Is this flight test or calculated performance charts? These would be interesting to see. I'm always happy to clarify historical data.


----------



## proton45 (Jul 19, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh boy...




Hey, the thread said "Illogical" (lol)...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> Service Ceiling FLYBOYJ, the height at which it can climb at 2 m/s. That's how the Germans defined service ceiling atleast.



Service ceiling today is defined as 100 feet per minute. So its obvious that operating an aircraft at its service ceiling isn't going to be giving you ravaging performance.


----------



## magnocain (Jul 20, 2009)

I do not like Green Eggs and Ham or the P-51 Mustang. I have written essays on the subject, mostly on its complete and utter inferiority to the Corsair. I am upset that in BattleStations Pacific the Corsair is the 'normal' fighter while the Mustang is the 'advanced fighter.
I also prefer radial engine aircraft to inline engine aircraft.'


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jul 20, 2009)

All right, I will confess. 

I hate the Me 110 and its descendants, the 210 and 410. I have no reason to give. I just hate them - for

"I do not love thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why, I can not tell,
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not love thee, Doctor Fell."


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 20, 2009)

I hate the P-80 shooting star because Richard Bong was killed test flying it and it was never even a very important fighter, being so quickly and utterly outclassed by the F-86 Sabre. It irritates me that America lost its ace of aces and a great man to a stepping stone design with obsolete wings.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 20, 2009)

Really? Not sure you can blame Bong's habit of reducing power immediately upon lift-off as attributable to a poor P-80 design.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 20, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Really? Not sure you can blame Bong's habit of reducing power immediately upon lift-off as attributable to a poor P-80 design.


I don't blame thee aircraft design, I just don't like the plane or the idiots that decided that someone as valuable as Bong should be doing the near-suicidal job of testing experimental jets.


----------



## proton45 (Jul 20, 2009)

I didn't really count any votes, but it seems that a lot of people have a dislike for the P-51...I think I'm starting to see the "old bird" in a new light (lol). Maybe I have a new favorite! 

p.s. But seriously...I'm kind of surprised.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 20, 2009)

Sorry, Clay. I was thinking of another American Ace that lost his life after transitioning to F-80s. It wasn't during a flight test. I'll try and remember whom I'm thinking of. This guy was a long time piston engine pilot and had a habit of severely throttling back shortly after lift off. Apparently in the F-80, this was known to cause flameouts.

Now if I can just remember the ace I'm thinking of...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 20, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Sorry, Clay. I was thinking of another American Ace that lost his life after transitioning to F-80s. It wasn't during a flight test. I'll try and remember whom I'm thinking of. This guy was a long time piston engine pilot and had a habit of severely throttling back shortly after lift off. Apparently in the F-80, this was known to cause flameouts.
> 
> Now if I can just remember the ace I'm thinking of...


I know who you are talking about, but I can't remember either. IIRC it was a bad fuel pump that killed Bong. I also hate the design because straight-wing jets to me are like cars with wooden wheels.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I don't blame thee aircraft design, I just don't like the plane or the idiots that decided that someone as valuable as Bong should be doing the near-suicidal job of testing experimental jets.



Clay - he was killed in a production P-80! What leads you to believe he was doing a 'near suicidal' job?

I grew up around test pilots - one hell of a lot of them died - ditto fighter pilots flying production a/c - especially in the 1940-60 timeframe


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Clay - he was killed in a production P-80! What leads you to believe he was doing a 'near suicidal' job?
> 
> I grew up around test pilots - one hell of a lot of them died - ditto fighter pilots flying production a/c - especially in the 1940-60 timeframe


Test pilots die a lot and he would have been far more valuable teaching new fighter pilots or being a General than dead. I have a lot of respect for the extreme bravery of test pilots considering that one of these days one of those planes is bound to do something you can't recover from or bail out of, but Bong was the biggest name in American combat aviation since Rickenbacker.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I know who you are talking about, but I can't remember either. IIRC it was a bad fuel pump that killed Bong. I also hate the design because straight-wing jets to me are like cars with wooden wheels.


Actually, Bong forgot to turn on the backup pump so when the primary failed the backup didn't initiate


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't really have one aircraft I hate. But if I was an Allied Pilot I wouldn't like the FW 190. That thing was a "one shot" kill monster. The Browing 50's just don't cut it to a German cannon. One shot from that big mean 190 and you aircraft is disintegrating right in front of your eyes. 

So to get down to the point a plane that can drop you after 1 second of firepower is a plane that's hard to like. 

But I don't really hate the 190, it's a great plane. Funny how the Germans didn't use it more. 

Can't say I hate the Mustang, except that it wasn't that good at absorbing battle damage. 

Somehow I don't like the Savoia Marchetti too much, it wasn't very pretty.

I-16 was kind of chubby looking, but hey, we can't all look like thoroughbreds, can we?


----------



## Maestro (Jul 21, 2009)

Hmmm...

On my side it is the P-47... And I think no one can beat me on the illogism of my reason: just because I had a very hard time flying it in flight sims. Let's say it marked my memory... in a bad way ! You see, I told you it was illogic ! 

It is a rather good looking plane which did a great job in the ETO, but flying it in a flight sim is as hard as flying an anvil.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Test pilots die a lot and he would have been far more valuable teaching new fighter pilots or being a General than dead. I have a lot of respect for the extreme bravery of test pilots considering that one of these days one of those planes is bound to do something you can't recover from or bail out of, but Bong was the biggest name in American combat aviation since Rickenbacker.



The Air Force didn't plan on his early demise. Getting the first Group of P-80's was a huge honor....

I can just imagine the thought process Bong went through.. "Gee, General - I have a choice? I can lead the first jet fighter wing with America's best fighter - or I can go to Training Command and run an advanced training group?" "let me think it over and call you in a week"

Bong was a 'huge name' but it was all relative - there were distinguished air combat leaders(and aces) that died in the same time that had a lot more chance of making General - Like Dave Schilling. I suspect Schilling would have made his star one hell of a lot faster than Bong.

Hating the P-80 because the pilot made a mistake and died as a result seems 'unusual'... but that is the topic of the thread.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2009)

Maestro said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> On my side it is the P-47... And I think no one can beat me on the illogism of my reason: just because I had a very hard time flying it in flight sims. Let's say it marked my memory... in a bad way ! You see, I told you it was illogic !
> 
> It is a rather good looking plane which did a great job in the ETO, but flying it in a flight sim is as hard as flying an anvil.



Maestro - do ya suppose the game developers didn't like the 47? 

By all acccounts it was an easy airplane to fly and very honest - with superb performance above 25K. The real record and performance capability of the Jug was far above the 'gamer' version. 

In the case of IL-2 one would think they plugged P-40 performance with Spad firepower into the Mustang and P-47


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 22, 2009)

> In the case of IL-2 one would think they plugged P-40 performance with Spad firepower into the Mustang and P-47



They certainly are not over modded. It can be tough to make them have a good day.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Maestro - do ya suppose the game developers didn't like the 47?
> 
> By all acccounts it was an easy airplane to fly and very honest - with superb performance above 25K. The real record and performance capability of the Jug was far above the 'gamer' version.



I know... But the fact that (in Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator 1 3, at least) P-47s were turning like pigs and always stalling when I was trying to gain altitude, didn't helps...

But I perfectly know from historic accounts that the P-47 was a good plane.


----------



## Auravir (Jul 22, 2009)

I never really liked the La-5, 7, and 9. To me they just look like elongated I-16s. 

Take this painting for example:






I know it's just a painting, but it does look startlingly like an I-16 from that angle.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

I don't have any illogical hatred for any particular warbird. The ones I do hate, I hate for a reason lol.
The Zero and the Kate but more for their symbolism than anything else.

Now, I understand why some of you have an illogical "hatred" for the P-51 and the B-17 to a lesser extent. 
The B-17 didn't carry the largest payload in the Allied arsenal. And despite the vaunted claims, before it was put into service, that they could take care of themselves quite well unescorted, those claims turned out to be rather fallacious to say the least. The loss rates over Germany before the P-51 showed up will attest to that.
And certainly it was the wide variety of aircraft available to the Allied forces that was the major contribution towards victory, not just two types.
The P-51 certainly didn't bring any real revolutionary technology into the battle. It was just a well designed airframe mated to a superb power plant.
But it was the advent of the P-51 that allowed the Allies to fight the war over Germany in earnest, with a lot more bombers returning home because of it. The ability to act as a long range escort is what made the P-51 able to take, and keep ahold of, the spotlight.
But let's face it, in the ETO the P-47 and Hawker Typhoon (among several others)were just as instrumental to the victory. Blasting through the Wermacht and attacking smaller, but no less important ground targets to help pave the way for the ground forces.

I've had the opportunity to fly a Mustang btw, albeit not anywhere near fighting trim and I can see why so many people love it. She's a very nimble and responsive aircraft with lots of power. A real treat to fly, especially with the luxury of NOT having someone trying to shoot me down.
Even the look of it when it's flying or viewing it head on, on the ground. It doesn't necessarily look intimidating, but it does look like it's not going to take any of your bullchit.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

I have some hatred for the B-17, I recognize that it was a good airframe, but I hate the self-defending-bomber concept and the damage it did to our air crews.


----------



## Negative Creep (Jul 24, 2009)

Just never liked the looks. It's as if they took a Spitfire but got the dimensions all wrong


----------



## Hudson MkIII (Jul 27, 2009)

On looks alone it would have to be the F4F and the P47 for me, but I don't hate them. I generally prefer fighters with inline engines but I do have a soft spot for radial engined biplanes.


----------



## Butters (Jul 27, 2009)

I don't like the Helldiver. Not only is the Beast a disaster from an aesthetic viewpoint- an ungainly squat pig with a cartoonish tail, but the thing was unpopular with its crews, and required literally thousands of expensive modifications before it became even somewhat tactically efficient. Pretty low on the 'bang for the buck' scale...

The Fairey Barracuda is also a hideous abortion to look at. And when it comes to German aircraft, I've always thought that the - wait for it- Ta 152H was an ugly,gangly funhouse caricature of the gorgeous FW 190-D. It looks like some medieval torturers had decided to draw and quarter the lovely Dora. You know, tie horses to the nose, tail, and wing tips and start lashing them with whips. Not to mention how tiresome it gets hearing its devotees going on and on about how it would have creamed everything in the skies. Sheesh...

I'll go hide now 

JL


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2009)

Butters said:


> I don't like the Helldiver. Not only is the Beast a disaster from an aesthetic viewpoint- an ungainly squat pig with a cartoonish tail, but the thing was unpopular with its crews, and required literally thousands of expensive modifications before it became even somewhat tactically efficient. Pretty low on the 'bang for the buck' scale...
> 
> The Fairey Barracuda is also a hideous abortion to look at. And when it comes to German aircraft, I've always thought that the - wait for it- Ta 152H was an ugly,gangly funhouse caricature of the gorgeous FW 190-D. It looks like some medieval torturers had decided to draw and quarter the lovely Dora. You know, tie horses to the nose, tail, and wing tips and start lashing them with whips. Not to mention how tiresome it gets hearing its devotees going on and on about how it would have creamed everything in the skies. Sheesh...
> 
> ...



LMAO


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 27, 2009)

I wouldn't call it an "illogical hatred", but I've never really been as enamored of the B17 and P51, mainly due to the overabundance of media hype surrounding these planes. I have nothing against the crews that flew these, nor am I ever going to disparage their contributions to the war effort....I just think that, due to the media, a very large number of equally-deserving planes and crews have gone unrecognized.


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 28, 2009)

spitfire.. as many of you guys says..sick of hearing how pretty it is and so on..and after actually working on it i really started "hating" that plane.. its the most stupid design ever when it comes to actually working on it.. nothing really fits.. everything is in the way of eachother so one cant work on one part unless removing this and that..and to remove this and that one again has to remove another this and that..and so on..
and the english system.. attach one part with 6 different size bolts.. instead of using same size bolts ( like german and american ) and since its all handmade ( as i said earlier here ) nothing really fits.. hate that aircraft and refuse to work more on it.. lst thing i mounted was the oxygenbottles behind the pilotseat ( mark XI ) and first the seat had to be removed..and so on... stupid design ( now i will upset quite a few but its just my opinion and experience ) hehe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2009)

Interesting, maybe that has something to do with the turn around times. Have you checked out this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/battle-britain-turn-around-time-19850-2.html


----------



## Civettone (Jul 28, 2009)

Waynos, this is just a wonderful thread! Really great question!

Personally, I can't think of one. I used to have several of them when I was younger but nowadays I try to keep things rational and in perspective. If I still hate an aircraft, I have a logic for it  
I have to think if there is still one ... 

Kris


----------



## Velius (Jul 28, 2009)

acerus said:


> i dont like B-24´s....don´t know why....maybe its the Airframe.



Me neither. To me it looks like a box with wings- but it had a large payload so I guess it was for a reason...



Marshall_Stack said:


> The Beaufighter looks like some mutant insect experiment gone horribly wrong from some deranged evil scientist. Beauty and the Beast.



I don't like how the very tips of the spinners (or prop hubs) are farther forward than the forward most part of the fuselage. For a twin engined aircraft, this just isn't a good look.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2009)

Velius said:


> I don't like how the very tips of the spinners (or prop hubs) are farther forward than the forward most part of the fuselage. For a twin engined aircraft, this just isn't a good look.



Blaspheme!!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 28, 2009)

That is a beautiful ship.


----------



## Velius (Jul 28, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Blaspheme!!



Me-410 right? Just doesn't look right to me.

As far as looks goes give me a 110 anyday!


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 28, 2009)

Junkers88A1 said:


> everything is in the way of eachother so one cant work on one part unless removing this and that..and to remove this and that one again has to remove another this and that..and so on..
> and the english system.. attach one part with 6 different size bolts.. instead of using same size bolts ( like german and american ) and since its all handmade ( as i said earlier here ) nothing really fits.. hate that aircraft and refuse to work more on it.. lst thing i mounted was the oxygenbottles behind the pilotseat ( mark XI ) and first the seat had to be removed..and so on... stupid design ( now i will upset quite a few but its just my opinion and experience ) hehe



Junkers,
I wouldn't call that an illogical hatred, sounds more like preserving your sanity if you ask me...


----------



## Venganza (Jul 28, 2009)

There are none I really hate. Hey, I even like the Zubr (look under the Worst Aircraft thread)! That being said, I've never particularly liked the Hurricane. It seems to have been overproduced, overused, and overrated. I realize it shot down more German planes during the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire, but that was in 1940. I would not have wanted to tangle with many other modern fighters in a Hurricane after that date. Even during 1942, when the Soviets were desperate for planes, they didn't like flying the Hurricane and relegated them to PVO (area interceptor) duties as soon as they could replace them with better front line fighters like the La-5, the Yak's, the P-40, the P-39, etc. Some Soviet pilots even preferred the I-16 (hey, what's wrong with the Ishak's squatty looks, anyway?). With its 1920's technology fuselage and thick wings, it just didn't have any stretch. Say what you want to about the Spitfire and Bf-109, but they were first-generation modern monoplane fighters that were developed and remained competitive all the way to the end of the piston-engined fighter era (think Bf-109K and Spitfire F.24). The Hurricane had pretty much reached its potential by the Battle of Britain.

Venganza


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 29, 2009)

_Me-410 right?_

I think the technical name used by US fighter pilots was actually "meat on the table."


----------



## Waynos (Jul 29, 2009)

Glad you guys like the thread, it does raise some interesting views that it might not be appropriate to post in other threads doesn't it?

I knew at the beginning that 'dislike' would be a better word than 'hatred', but like in the press, the more sensationlist word seems to provoke more discussion 

Regarding the Spitfire in Junkers post, I agree that this hatred seems entirely logical and it does seem odd that we seemingly gave no thought to access and maintainability in the UK until the MB5, and THEN we didn't produce it 

The Hurricane does look 'heavy', and one way I look at it is that it was the ultimate biplane. I know that statement looks like cobblers, but I mean in the way it was made, compared to all the other flashy monplanes. Of course it was this that allowed us to have enough of them in the first place, and I have read that its kill rate in the BoB was the same as the Spitfire, so it wasn't too shabby, but hey, thats whatt he thread is for!


----------



## Venganza (Jul 29, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The Hurricane does look 'heavy', and one way I look at it is that it was the ultimate biplane. I know that statement looks like cobblers, but I mean in the way it was made, compared to all the other flashy monplanes. Of course it was this that allowed us to have enough of them in the first place, and I have read that its kill rate in the BoB was the same as the Spitfire, so it wasn't too shabby, but hey, thats whatt he thread is for!



Your statement about the Hurricane makes perfect sense to me, Waynos. In order to have a reasonably modern fighter in service for the upcoming war, Hawker deliberately stuck to tried and true construction techiniques they'd honed on their Fury and Hart series biplanes, combined with a cantilever monoplane design with retractable gear. And it worked - instead of still being largely equipped with Gauntlets and Gladiators by the outbreak of the war, the RAF had Hurricanes, and of course they had many in service for the Battle of Britain.

Venganza


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 29, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> _Me-410 right?_
> 
> I think the technical name used by US fighter pilots was actually "meat on the table."




Not always.... See under "Eduard Tratt."


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 29, 2009)

hi

and thanks for the comments. and YES..i am pretty sure that has to do with turn around times for the spit as its TOTALLY illogical made and everything that has to be done on it is hard time consuming work.. just to replace the coolingtank one has to drill out brackets that holds the cowling..and when a new coolingtank is installed..one has to start riveting the whoel da..n nosesection back in place.. imagine doing that is a stressfull situation when one needs aircrafts back in the air asap.. and compare with the P-51.. ( now i know a lot in here "hate " that plane also ..but its done in 10 minutes.. out with the old and in with the new " 

and Waynos  great comment. typical english selfironi !! love it 



( and Gumbyk..i think you are on to something there..hehe )

and yes..this thread does make some interesting points that does not show in other threads  i really like this thread  everybody likes to get some steam out from time to time and this is the perfect place


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Velius said:


> Me neither. To me it looks like a box with wings- but it had a large payload so I guess it was for a reason...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like how the very tips of the spinners (or prop hubs) are farther forward than the forward most part of the fuselage. For a twin engined aircraft, this just isn't a good look.



well..lets see what the guys during WW2 thought about it.. these are all drawn during the war by Bob Stevens. best book ever and a must read.. There I was..flat on my back


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 29, 2009)

and while we are at it..the P-47..P-38 and how the allied looked at the jet and rocket engine beeing itroduced by the germans


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 29, 2009)

sorry..forgot to rezise those.. but i guess this is just as valid today as it was back then 

tonns more where these came from  hope you like`em


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 29, 2009)

maybe i should start a thread just with these  hehe


----------



## Waynos (Jul 30, 2009)

Oh yes please do, they are magical, but don't resize them *too* small eh? I have one I like showing the German ejector seat as a weapon, when I get home from my hols I'll post it up. Also does anyone have any of the old Wren toons?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

Another illogical hate of aircraft I have is all French bombers. They were just plain ugly (which is an illogical reason to dislike something...), especially the Amiot 143 and Farman F.220.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2009)

The French had airplanes?? 

Those pics would be a good idea for a thread.


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 30, 2009)

french aircrafts ? 

hehe

anyway.. if i am starting a thread with the WW2 drawings, the corean war and also from the vietnam war )..where do i put it..and i can either post them as the big ones here or the smaller i have resized here.. what does the moderators say ? 

any thoughs on this ?


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 30, 2009)

and again.. what did the guys back then think of these aircrfats we speak of,, here is one of my favorite songs ( i love Oscar brand and his music. now these texts are not cahnged since the war )

a "must" listen for all interested in warbirds


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Y43aH9xx0_


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 30, 2009)

and what they thought about the B-17


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOKODvk1AgA_


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 30, 2009)

another good one by oscar brand


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=723byD_0UrQ_


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2009)

Yeah, take it to a separate thread please. This one is getting derailed.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 30, 2009)

WWII General sounds like a good place, Junkers.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 30, 2009)

LMAO but those are awesome!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2009)

If it is about WW2 aircraft put it in this section. If it is about Korean or Vietnam put them in the Modern or Post War section.

Please downsize the pics just a lil bit more though.


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jul 31, 2009)

will do


----------



## river (Aug 1, 2009)

Hi,



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Another illogical hate of aircraft I have is all French bombers. They were just plain ugly



Yes! Just like their cars. 

river


----------



## Auravir (Aug 1, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Agreed!


----------



## Civettone (Aug 1, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What about the LeO 451 or Amiot 354??







http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/french-bombers-ugly-2629.html

Kris


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 1, 2009)

I love the French Bombers. They are certainly unique!


----------



## river (Aug 2, 2009)

Hi,



vikingBerserker said:


> I love the French Bombers.



Ahh, I had heard that someone loved them. So... it's you, eh? 

river


----------



## Maestro (Aug 2, 2009)

I once heard : "If a plane looks good, it will fly well." Then French bombers must fly like sh*t !


----------



## merlin (Aug 2, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> Yes! Just like their cars.
> 
> river



Just because the Ciroen CV2 is built like a shed on wheels - doesn't mean French cars are ugly!

Indeed, since the mid-eighties Peugeots (with the advent of the 205 and its successors), and Renault brought French chic to their car industry.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2009)

merlin said:


> Just because the Ciroen CV2 is built like a shed on wheels - doesn't mean French cars are ugly!



No but a lot of them are, just like the planes.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 2, 2009)

I would also like to add the Breguet 690 series, one of the most attractive looking aircraft of the war.

I think it would be more accurrate to say that the French bombers of the mid 30's were ugly. I tried to find an exception to that, but couldn't


----------



## merlin (Aug 2, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No but a lot of them are, just like the planes.



Such as


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2009)

merlin said:


> Such as



Getting way off topic now, but here you go:

**** looking French cars:
Renault Scénic
Renault Laguna (the 2008 Renault Laguna Coup does not look bad though)
Renault Espace
Renault Vel Satis
Renault Modus
Renault Kangoo
Renault Avantime
Renault 4
Citroën AX
Citroën BX
Citroën C15
Citroën XM (very very ugly...)
Citroën Nemo
Citroën Berlingo
Citroën Elysée
Citroën C-Métisse
Citroën C-Buggy
GT by Citroën
Peugeot 104
Peugeot 305
Peugeot 306
Peugeot 308
Peugeot 309
Peugeot 404
Peugeot 504
Peugeot 505
Peugeot 4002
Peugeot Quark

**** looking planes:
Amiot 143
Amiot 354
Bloch MB.131
Bloch MB.200 (this one is an abortion that failed)
Bloch MB.210 (another failed abortion)
Breguet 693
Farman F.220
Loire-Nieuport LN.401
Potez 540 (another failed abortion)
Blériot 110 
Dewoitine D.33


----------



## ralphwiggum (Aug 2, 2009)

I Don't like Corsairs and It has nothing to do with it's wings. I just never cared for it. I never cared for the 
Mosquito. I Don't like the Mustang either but, I don't hate any of them I think they're all outstanding planes 
I think I dislike the Mustang because it outflew the Luftwaffe's planes.....Except the Me-262
I'm far from being the expert that you folks are so maybe I'm all wrong about the Mustang


----------



## Civettone (Aug 2, 2009)

Maestro said:


> I once heard : "If a plane looks good, it will fly well." Then French bombers must fly like sh*t !


Hahaha ... it was a Frenchman who said it !!!!  

Marcel Bloch talking about the Dassault Mirage 


Kris


----------



## Waynos (Aug 2, 2009)

I think R J Mitchell said it first, it was his entire philosophy, though you wouldn't think so to look at the Walrus.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 2, 2009)

ralphwiggum said:


> I Don't like Corsairs and It has nothing to do with it's wings. I just never cared for it. I never cared for the
> Mosquito. I Don't like the Mustang either but, I don't hate any of them I think they're all outstanding planes
> I think I dislike the Mustang because it outflew the Luftwaffe's planes.....Except the Me-262
> I'm far from being the expert that you folks are so maybe I'm all wrong about the Mustang



You aren't wrong - except the FW 190D series and the Ta 152 were very competitive as the Me 109K.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 2, 2009)

from the official dassaultfalcon.com website:



> "For an airplane to fly well, it must be beautiful"
> 
> Marcel Dassault [a.k.a. Bloch]
> Founder



But perhaps Mitchell said something similar too!
Kris


----------



## The Basket (Aug 2, 2009)

French cars are cool BTW. Look at the Caravelle or the Mirage III. That is some nice machinery.

The aircraft which I don't get is the Bf 109.

Really really don't like it. Obvious flaws never fixed.

Not saying good/bad but don't like it.

Grumman Wildcat...don't like.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

The Basket said:


> French cars are cool BTW. Look at the Caravelle or the Mirage III. That is some nice machinery.
> 
> The aircraft which I don't get is the Bf 109.
> 
> ...


which flaws do you mean? just curious.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 2, 2009)

Undercarriage
Narrow cockpit
Bathtub for a canopy
Poor visibility
controls freezing at high speed.
Undergunned
I know that at certain parts of the air war that the 109 could be considered one of the best but would you choose it in 1944?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

The Basket said:


> Undercarriage
> Narrow cockpit
> Bathtub for a canopy
> Poor visibility
> ...


the one thing I'd most want to fix is the landing gear. I hate planes with poor ground handling.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 2, 2009)

drgondog said:


> You aren't wrong - except the FW 190D series and the Ta 152 were very competitive as the Me 109K.



FD-190D was basically equivalent to the P-51B/D but with poorer high alitude performance. The Ta was not really a player. The Bf-109K was the most formidable P-51 competition and was clearly superior. However, none of these aircraft arrived early enough. From the advent of the P-51B with -7 engine until Nov-Dec of '44, there was not much competition to the P-51 from the Luftwaffe from SL to 35k. It amazes me that the Germans were unable to field a Bf-109K type aircraft in quantity in early '44. It would have been a much easier to build a point defense weapon able to dominate the P-51 than it was to build a dominating plane able to fly 400 miles, fight for an hour and fly back.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 2, 2009)

davparlr said:


> FD-190D was basically equivalent to the P-51B/D but with poorer high alitude performance. The Ta was not really a player. The Bf-109K was the most formidable P-51 competition and was clearly superior. However, none of these aircraft arrived early enough. From the advent of the P-51B with -7 engine until Nov-Dec of '44, there was not much competition to the P-51 from the Luftwaffe from SL to 35k. It amazes me that the Germans were unable to field a Bf-109K type aircraft in quantity in early '44. It would have been a much easier to build a point defense weapon able to dominate the P-51 than it was to build a dominating plane able to fly 400 miles, fight for an hour and fly back.



Dave - I have talked to enough guys that flew the 109K that I don't believe it was 'dominant'. Certainly equivalent and equal in the 20-30K range. It climbed better but so did the -10, and -14. It was as fast at that altitude but handling qualities according to these guys did not improve at high speed - in fact they said the roll qualities were worse and at best the turn qualities were equal to 109G6.. sooooo I don't know about 'clearly superior' especially when compared against the P-51B-15.

As almost always the pilot and tactical position at the beginning was more important than relative performance of these a/c. IMHO.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 3, 2009)

Civettone said:


> from the official dassaultfalcon.com website:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, Mitchell said 'if it looks right it will fly right' which is what you first posted, same meaning, just different words.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 3, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Dave - I have talked to enough guys that flew the 109K that I don't believe it was 'dominant'. Certainly equivalent and equal in the 20-30K range. It climbed better but so did the -10, and -14. It was as fast at that altitude but handling qualities according to these guys did not improve at high speed - in fact they said the roll qualities were worse and at best the turn qualities were equal to 109G6.. sooooo I don't know about 'clearly superior' especially when compared against the P-51B-15.
> 
> As almost always the pilot and tactical position at the beginning was more important than relative performance of these a/c. IMHO.



Hmmm, I was basing my comment on my memory of the airspeed/climb data, which is all I the info I have. However, on examining my data, the difference is not very much, especially to the B, and certainly not enough to say in was clearly superior to either the B or D.  I did see a Dogfight show where one of the P-51 pilots tangled with an unidentified Bf-109 that outperformed his highly tuned aircraft. After escaping, he had no desire to seek out the Bf-109 that had been tormenting him.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 3, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Hmmm, I was basing my comment on my memory of the airspeed/climb data, which is all I the info I have. However, on examining my data, the difference is not very much, especially to the B, and certainly not enough to say in was clearly superior to either the B or D.  I did see a Dogfight show where one of the P-51 pilots tangled with an unidentified Bf-109 that outperformed his highly tuned aircraft. After escaping, he had no desire to seek out the Bf-109 that had been tormenting him.


Airshows can see a wide variety of mechanical conditions and pilot skill. It's certainly true that the 109 is capable of potentially beating a Mustang.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2009)

The Basket said:


> Undercarriage
> Narrow cockpit
> Bathtub for a canopy
> Poor visibility
> ...



Undergunned? I can understand some of your points, but undergunned? How was it undergunned?

In 1944? I would have no problem taking a Bf 109. It was a competitive aircraft to the end. That does not mean it was the best, but it was competitive until the end. Just like all aircraft, it had advantages and disadvantages over other aircraft.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 3, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Undergunned? I can understand some of your points, but undergunned? How was it undergunned?
> 
> In 1944? I would have no problem taking a Bf 109. It was a competitive aircraft to the end. That does not mean it was the best, but it was competitive until the end. Just like all aircraft, it had advantages and disadvantages over other aircraft.


If you could pop someone just once with that 30mm, they were toast.


----------



## ralphwiggum (Aug 3, 2009)

I forgot all about those three planes! I think that any of those three you mentioned would've given the P-51 
a hard time especially with a veteran pilot at the controls like Pips Priller or someone else with lots of experience flying against the Western Allies


----------



## The Basket (Aug 3, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Undergunned? I can understand some of your points, but undergunned? How was it undergunned?
> 
> In 1944? I would have no problem taking a Bf 109. It was a competitive aircraft to the end. That does not mean it was the best, but it was competitive until the end. Just like all aircraft, it had advantages and disadvantages over other aircraft.



It was only designed with two machine guns and the F only had two guns and a cannon. To put some guns on it you had to have underwing gondolas...the aircraft was too small for the guns put into it...never saw gondolas on a 190.

By 1944...hmmm...Tempest or 109...Corsair or 109...Mustang or 109....nope...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2009)

The Basket said:


> It was only designed with two machine guns and the F only had two guns and a cannon. To put some guns on it you had to have underwing gondolas...the aircraft was too small for the guns put into it...never saw gondolas on a 190.
> 
> By 1944...hmmm...Tempest or 109...Corsair or 109...Mustang or 109....nope...



What are you talking about designed with only 2 machine guns??? Notice below that when I say "built in the wings" that those are not gondolas, they are built into the wings...

Bf 109E-1: 2 MG 17 in the nose and 2 MG 17 built in the wings 
Bf 109E-2: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 1 20mm cannon through the hub, and 2 20mm Cannon built in the wings. 
Bf 109E-3: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 MG FF 20mm cannon built int he wings. 
Bf 109E-4: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 MG FF 20mm Cannon built in the wings.
Bf 109E-5: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 MG 17 built in the wings.
Bf 109E-6/N: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 MG 17 built in the wings.
Bf 109E-7: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 Mg FF 20mm cannon built in the wings.
Bf 109E-7/B: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 Mg FF 20mm cannon built in the wings.
Bf 109E-8: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 Mg FF 20mm cannon built in the wings.
Bf 109E-9: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 Mg FF 20mm cannon built in the wings.
Bf 109F-1: 1 MG FF 20mm cannon and 2 MG 17 in the nose.
Bf 109F-2: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon in the nose. (yes this variant was underarmed)
Bf 109F-3: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon in the nose. (yes this variant was underarmed)
Bf 109F-4: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 17 in the nose.
Bf 109F-5: 2 MG 17 in the nose (yes this varient was underarmed)
Bf 109F-6: 2 Mg 17 in the nose (yes this varient was underarmed)
Bf 109G-1: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 17 in the nose.
Bf 109G-2: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 17 in the nose.
Bf 109G-3: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 17 in the nose.
Bf 109G-4: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 17 in the nose.
Bf 109G-5: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 17 in the nose.
Bf 109G-6: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 131 in the nose.
Bf 109G-14: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 131 in the nose.
Bf 109G-10: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 131 in the nose.
Bf 109K-4: 1 MG 151 20mm cannon and 2 MG 131 in the nose.

So as you can see the aircraft had more than "2 guns" on almost all variants. Besides the F variant, it was not under-armed. You are forgetting about th 20mm and 30mm cannon that fired through the hub. The 109's armament was just fine.



The Basket said:


> By 1944...hmmm...Tempest or 109...Corsair or 109...Mustang or 109....nope...



Are you actually saying the 109 was not competative in 1944? Plenty of Tempests and Mustangs were shot down by 109s from 1944 to 1945. The highest aces on both the eastern and western fronts flew the 109.

Like I said, the 109 was not the best fighter of the war, but she was a damn good one! I am sure if you would go and ask some pilots who actually flew against it and they would tell you that you are dead wrong.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 3, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What are you talking about designed with only 2 machine guns??? Notice below that when I say "built in the wings" that those are not gondolas, they are built into the wings...
> 
> Bf 109E-1: 2 MG 17 in the nose and 2 MG 17 built in the wings
> Bf 109E-2: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 1 20mm cannon through the hub, and 2 20mm Cannon built in the wings.
> ...



The 109 is an aircraft which I think overstayed its welcome. you dont lke french cars I dont like the 109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2009)

The Basket said:


> The 109 is an aircraft which I think overstayed its welcome. you dont lke french cars I dont like the 109.



No, don't take me wrong. You are entitled to your opinion. I was just stating that some of the reasons were not true, i.e. the aircraft under armed and not able to compete with other aircraft.

This is a thread about illogical reasons you know, and you can have yours...


----------



## davparlr (Aug 3, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Airshows can see a wide variety of mechanical conditions and pilot skill. It's certainly true that the 109 is capable of potentially beating a Mustang.



Dogfight is a History Channel show. The person interviewed was a P-51 ace.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 3, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Bf 109E-2: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 1 20mm cannon through the hub, and 2 20mm Cannon built in the wings.
> Bf 109E-5: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 MG 17 built in the wings.
> Bf 109E-6/N: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 MG 17 built in the wings.
> Bf 109E-8: 2 MG 17 in the nose, 2 Mg FF 20mm cannon built in the wings.
> ...



E-2 not produced
E-5 only 2 mg 17 on nose was recce
E-6 only 2 mg 17 on nose was recce
E-8 2+2 mg 17
E-9 only 2 mg 17 on nose was recce
F-2 1 mg 151/15 and 2 mg 17 (the Galland plane with mg 131)
F-3 1 mg 151/15 and 2 mg 17
F-5 not mass production (maybe only 1) weaponry not clear
F-6 only 2 mg 17 was recce (only 1)
F-6/U Galland plane 1 mg 151/15 2 mg 17 2 mg ff 
G-5 1 mg 151/20 2 mg 131
G-10/U-4 and -14/U-4 with mk 108 (in place of mg 151/20)


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you actually saying the 109 was not competative in 1944? Plenty of Tempests and Mustangs were shot down by 109s from 1944 to 1945. The highest aces on both the eastern and western fronts flew the 109.
> 
> Like I said, the 109 was not the best fighter of the war, but she was a damn good one! I am sure if you would go and ask some pilots who actually flew against it and they would tell you that you are dead wrong.



The 355th FG lost more fighters to 109s than 190s..but probably the P-47 took a higher percent loss rate than the Mustang. 

I KNOW my father respected the hell out of the 109. Ialso suspect the P-51 shot a lot more down than any other Allied fighter - but don't know for sure.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 3, 2009)

I dont like the P-51 becuase its overated and I dont like the P-47 becuase its ugly.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2009)

The Basket said:


> ...never saw gondolas on a 190...


Fw190A5/U12, Black 13 with 20mm (MG 151) gunpods...


----------



## drgondog (Aug 3, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Fw190A5/U12, Black 13 with 20mm (MG 151) gunpods...



dead meat for the escorts


----------



## Catch22 (Aug 3, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Fw190A5/U12, Black 13 with 20mm (MG 151) gunpods...



The thing about Fw 190s and gondolas is, they didn't need them at all really. It's only if they had oversized guns mounted on them did they need gondolas, but under normal circumstances they could have 4 cannons inside the wings mounted like normal.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2009)

By removing the outboard cannon on each wing, and installing the dual cannon pods, the A5/U12 had a total of 6 20mm cannon (and the two cowl 7.92 MG) that was bad news for bombers or anything else that got in it's gunsights.

The only thing I can think of that was more deadly would be the A8 with the equipped with the 30mm Mk108 that replaced the outer 20mm cannon on each wing...but those remained in the wings


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> E-2 not produced
> E-5 only 2 mg 17 on nose was recce
> E-6 only 2 mg 17 on nose was recce
> E-8 2+2 mg 17
> ...



I am going to have to check this out. You may be right, but the book I looked this up says differently. I will look it up when I get home however.


----------



## river (Aug 4, 2009)

Hi,

The info I have, regarding the E series, is similar to Vincenzo's data. I haven't got data on F series or later.

The E2 variant did not enter production.

The text I referred to for this data is "Messerschmitt Bf109 A-E" by Willy Rodinger Walter Schick.

river


----------



## Catch22 (Aug 4, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> By removing the outboard cannon on each wing, and installing the dual cannon pods, the A5/U12 had a total of 6 20mm cannon (and the two cowl 7.92 MG) that was bad news for bombers or anything else that got in it's gunsights.
> 
> The only thing I can think of that was more deadly would be the A8 with the equipped with the 30mm Mk108 that replaced the outer 20mm cannon on each wing...but those remained in the wings



I don't think I was very clear. What I meant was is that the 190 didn't need gondolas to have powerful armament. But yes, I agree about the A5/U12! That's some real firepower.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2009)

A bit late for me. I dont think there are any WWII aircraft that I dont like. There is really only one post war aircraft that I dont have a lot of time for, and there is no logical reason really....thats the F-104 starfighter. Ive never been near to one, have only studied it on a casual basis, but it just doesnt ring any bells for me....

A WWII aircraft that I like, but which still annoys me is the Me 262. Such potential, so little result......


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2009)

I have no time for all the Italian aircraft, probably because I have no time for the Italian war effort. And it drives me even further away when people try and protect Italy's effort with the "they weren't prepared" argument.

I have been determined to learn more about Italy's adventures through '36 - '45, but it's on hold at the moment!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2009)

river said:


> Hi,
> 
> The info I have, regarding the E series, is similar to Vincenzo's data. I haven't got data on F series or later.
> 
> ...



Yes Vincenzo is correct, the E-2 never entered production. I wonder why?

I have now checked several sources and some are similar to what I posted, and some are similar to what Vincenzo posted, and some are different from what either of us posted. Vicenzo is 100% correct on the E-5/E-6, as it was only a recce version and had the armament reduced. I was messed up somewhere there.

Basically though I still stand with what I said about the Bf 109 not being under armed, except for maybe the F variant.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 5, 2009)

parsifal said:


> A bit late for me. I dont think there are any WWII aircraft that I dont like. There is really only one post war aircraft that I dont have a lot of time for, and there is no logical reason really....thats the F-104 starfighter. Ive never been near to one, have only studied it on a casual basis, but it just doesnt ring any bells for me....
> 
> A WWII aircraft that I like, but which still annoys me is the Me 262. Such potential, so little result......


Did you ever see that movie "the right stuff" about chuck yeager and the first astronauts? well known movie. There's a scene about the F-104 in that. Perhaps that should change your opinion  

Kris


----------



## river (Aug 6, 2009)

Hi,

Didn't the F-104 set some altitude records where the pilot would point it straight up and go for broke to see how high it would go? I think it was over 100,000 ft.

river


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

from fas.org:

_On May 18, 1958, an F-104A set a world speed record of 1,404.19 mph, and on December 14, 1959, an F-104C set a world altitude record of 103,395 feet. The Starfighter was the first aircraft to hold simultaneous official world records for speed, altitude and time-to-climb._

I saw the F-104G a couple of years ago and what struck me and everyone else who ever saw it up close was how thin those wings were. I could almost have cut my fingers touching it!

Kris


----------



## billswagger (Aug 7, 2009)

plan_D said:


> I have no time for all the Italian aircraft, probably because I have no time for the Italian war effort. And it drives me even further away when people try and protect Italy's effort with the "they weren't prepared" argument.
> 
> I have been determined to learn more about Italy's adventures through '36 - '45, but it's on hold at the moment!



I realize this isn't part of the discussion, but in relation to the US invasion, much of italy's efforts were botched by political unrest in southern italy, where Musso wasn't well liked. I also took a crime history class in college that linked the mafia with the US war effort in southern italy. So in other words, it was a concerted effort from the local power players in southern Italy, that was feeding US intelligence. There was also likely sabotage that basically paved the way for a US invasion that made it even easier than it should've been. 

Now, for planes i hate. I can't say i hate the Spitfire, but i just don' like it. Its played out.
but if i got a spitfire for my birthday, then i would take it, dont get me wrong.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 7, 2009)

I went through quite a long period where I found the Spitfire to be dull and tedious (maybe like I am now with the P-51 and B-17?) and then, one day, it was like a light suddenly came on and I was awake again, now I can't get enough of it and this utter fascination has now lasted for many years! How bizarre.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

Waynos, what's your favourite Mark ?


Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 7, 2009)

I have an illogical hatred for the Spitfire's wings.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2009)

What about the clipped wings? 


Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Civettone said:


> What about the clipped wings?
> 
> 
> Kris


those are so much better!


----------



## Civettone (Aug 8, 2009)

hahahaha ! 


Kris


----------



## Waynos (Aug 8, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Waynos, what's your favourite Mark ?
> 
> 
> Kris



Ooh, varies a great deal as I am as flighty as a teenage girl on this, but my favourite is the Mark XIV with elliptical wings and 'original' canopy, all mean and musclebound looking. however I also have a soft spot for those very first few two blade, non-malcolm hooded mark 1's with their yellow encircled wing markings, especially when viewed alongside said Mk XIV.



Clay_Allison said:


> I have an illogical hatred for the Spitfire's wings.



Now that IS illogical


----------



## Venganza (Aug 8, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Ooh, varies a great deal as I am as flighty as a teenage girl on this, but my favourite is the Mark XIV with elliptical wings and 'original' canopy, all mean and musclebound looking. however I also have a soft spot for those very first few two blade, non-malcolm hooded mark 1's with their yellow encircled wing markings, especially when viewed alongside said Mk XIV.



Good choice! Mine would be the PR.XIX and/or the FR.46. Talk about muscular - the FR.46 and FR.47 with those huge six-blade contraprops just look mean and fast.

Venganza


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Ooh, varies a great deal as I am as flighty as a teenage girl on this, but my favourite is the Mark XIV with elliptical wings and 'original' canopy, all mean and musclebound looking. however I also have a soft spot for those very first few two blade, non-malcolm hooded mark 1's with their yellow encircled wing markings, especially when viewed alongside said Mk XIV.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that IS illogical


I know it is, but something in my head does not like big weird round wings.


----------



## Venganza (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I know it is, but something in my head does not like big weird round wings.



Clay, how about the "new wings" from the F.21 onwards? To be honest, I like those better than the earlier "true" elliptical wings.

Venganza


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Venganza said:


> Clay, how about the "new wings" from the F.21 onwards? To be honest, I like those better than the earlier "true" elliptical wings.
> 
> Venganza


I like those, they were very cool looking.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 8, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What are you talking about designed with only 2 machine guns???]
> 
> The Bf 109A ("Anton") was the first version of the Bf 109. The armament, planned to be only two cowl-mounted 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns.
> 
> ...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

The Basket said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > What are you talking about designed with only 2 machine guns???]
> ...


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2009)

I dislike/hate pretty much all of todays modern, or those from the last decade, piece of sh*t! The last good looking jet fighters are to me the F-4, F-8 just to mention two. I can handle the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18, but they were designed 20+ years ago....

F-22 and F-35? Ugly as a baboons red *rse!

I only like the JAS 39 Gripen because it's Swedish, the last good looking fighter we did was the '35 Draken!


----------



## Civettone (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I like those, they were very cool looking.


I couldn't help it but when I read that it reminded me of a South Park episode! 

_Kyle: Hey Stan, did you see that rainbow this morning?
Stan: Yeah, it was huge.
Cartman: Huh! I hate those things.
Kyle: Nobody hates rainbows.
Stan: Yeah, what's there to hate about rainbows?
Cartman: Well, you know you'll just be sitting there minding your own business and they'll come marching in and crawl up your leg and start biting the inside of your ass and you'll be like - Hey! Get out of my ass you stupid rainbows!
<silence>
Stan: Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?
Cartman: I'm talking about rainbows, I hate those frigging things.
Kyle: Rainbows are those little arches of color that show up during a rainstorm.
Cartman: *Oh, Rain-bows - oh yeah I like those - those, are cool*.
Stan: What were you talking about?
Cartman: Huh? Oh nothing, forget it.
Kyle: What marches in, crawles up your leg...
Cartman: Nothing.
Kyle: ...and bites the inside of your ass?
Cartman: Nothing!_

just kiddin bro 

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 8, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I couldn't help it but when I read that it reminded me of a South Park episode!
> 
> _Kyle: Hey Stan, did you see that rainbow this morning?
> Stan: Yeah, it was huge.
> ...


I said it was illogical, I didn't say it was revolting.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 8, 2009)

Civ, thats classic!!


----------



## The Basket (Aug 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The Basket said:
> 
> 
> > It does help that this was in a time before self sealing fuel tanks.
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2009)

The Basket said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > What are you talking about designed with only 2 machine guns???]
> ...


----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2009)

I would happily concede that the Emil and Fredrich were the BEST fighters in the world at first introduction and there would be very few who would argue with me even on this site.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2009)

Nothing like a southpark episode to shed light on a situation.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Nothing like a southpark episode to shed light on a situation.....



Huh?


----------



## Jester's Dead (Aug 10, 2009)

Me-163. 

Did any other WWII plane kill more of its own pilots than this deathtrap? Kaaaaaa-boom!!!


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 10, 2009)

Kamikaze?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 10, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Huh?



Just funny....thats all


----------



## Civettone (Aug 10, 2009)

Jester's Dead said:


> Me-163.
> 
> Did any other WWII plane kill more of its own pilots than this deathtrap? Kaaaaaa-boom!!!


Oh oh! I seem to become the official Me 163 protector  
Most of the horror stories about the Me 163 are fiction. Very very few people died from accidents, nobody got incinerated or blown to pieces, and the Me 163 shot down more bombers than it lost in combat and non-combat losses. In fact, it was one of the more succesful German fighter aircraft as others lost more than they shot down. The Me 163 - once operational - was a safe plane and very easy to fly as it was in fact a glider fitted with a rocket engine.


Kris


----------



## 109ROAMING (Aug 10, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Hmmm... tough question. Not a hatred, just ambivalence. And I might not that this is just today. My ambivalence changes over time. Example, I list the Spit below, but used to just love it. I think that ambivalence stems from the same reasons Waynos started this thread. And one I use to have ambivalence that I now love is the He-111.
> 
> Fairey Battle
> MiG-3
> ...



I'm the same , I use to have that 'dislike' for the P-39 and B-25 now they've come out of that and the Zero and P-39 have taken their place

Pretty sure it'l change in time to come


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Oh oh! I seem to become the official Me 163 protector
> Most of the horror stories about the Me 163 are fiction. Very very few people died from accidents, nobody got incinerated or blown to pieces, and the Me 163 shot down more bombers than it lost in combat and non-combat losses. In fact, it was one of the more succesful German fighter aircraft as others lost more than they shot down. The Me 163 - once operational - was a safe plane and very easy to fly as it was in fact a glider fitted with a rocket engine.
> 
> 
> Kris


I like the Komet also, but in all actuality, very few of the 91 delivered ever flew.

Out of those few, 6 were shot down by Allied aircraft, 9 were lost to operational incidents.

Thier final tally: 16 Allied aircraft shot down.

Statistically speaking, that's not very impressive


----------



## Civettone (Aug 11, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I like the Komet also, but in all actuality, very few of the 91 delivered ever flew.
> 
> Out of those few, 6 were shot down by Allied aircraft, 9 were lost to operational incidents.
> 
> ...


 I honestly think it is! Which other German fighter of 1944/1945 shot down more than it lost, accidents and ground losses included ? Definitely not the 109 and 190, maybe the 262 though I doubt it (again with accidents adn ground losses included). 

And most of the Me 163 victims were heavy bombers which costed ten times more than a Me 163. If they had enough fuel for them, the Komet could well have been much more succesful.


Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 12, 2009)

If the Komet had a slightly less dangerous fuel and were able to be cheaply constructed they would have made good kamikaze weapons. I think the brainwashed kids from the Hitler Youth would have volunteered to fly them.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 15, 2009)

The fuel wasn't dangerous...
It was cheaply constructed (very small and wings out of wood)

But not a bad idea ... it was relatively easy to fly. Using it as kamikaze would also have justified the lack of a landing gear. And in fact, the two fuel types, when improperly mixed - like during an impact with a large bomber - would create quite a buzz 


Kris


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 15, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I like the Komet also, but in all actuality, very few of the 91 delivered ever flew.
> 
> Out of those few, 6 were shot down by Allied aircraft, 9 were lost to operational incidents.
> 
> ...



GG, I've seen sources that credits the Komet with only nine (9) kills. Either way, you're right!

TO


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 15, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> GG, I've seen sources that credits the Komet with only nine (9) kills. Either way, you're right!
> 
> TO


I've seen that too...and it's either 9 or 16...not sure why the discrepancy. I went with the higher known number for the benefit of the thread 

To the comment:


> The fuel wasn't dangerous...
> It was cheaply constructed (very small and wings out of wood)


The fact was that the C-Stoff and T-Stoff was extremely volitile, to the point where a few Komets simply exploded just sitting unattended on the tarmac.

It was highly corrosive and highly reactive. It ate through metal fuel lines and reacted violently with wood. Fueling crew had to wear protective clothing because it so dangerous.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 17, 2009)

Ghost stories. I've read them innumerable times and no matter how many times I tried to refute them, they keep coming back 

When mixed they can become very dangerous but on their own they're not that dangerous. I mean, one of them is basically just bleech: that's why they wore protective suits. In case, the plane would crash with a full tank, the bleech could enter the cockpit. But there's always a possibility that any fuel leaks into a cockpit and ignites. The Komet was no more dangerous than others. The two fuel tanks were nicely seperated. Only with a very heavy crash would they become mixed, but just like with kerosine, that's usually fatal anyway.

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Ghost stories. I've read them innumerable times and no matter how many times I tried to refute them, they keep coming back
> 
> When mixed they can become very dangerous but on their own they're not that dangerous. I mean, one of them is basically just bleech: that's why they wore protective suits.
> Kris



Wikipediea "Regulations vary, but low concentrations, such as 3%, are widely available and legal to buy for medical use. Higher concentrations may be considered hazardous and are typically accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). In high concentrations, hydrogen peroxide is an aggressive oxidizer and will corrode many materials, including human skin. In the presence of a reducing agent, high concentrations of H2O2 will react violently."

3% to 12% may be bleach. 80-95% is not just bleach.

"Hydrogen peroxide, either in pure or diluted form, can pose several risks:

1. Explosive Vapors. Above roughly 70% concentrations, hydrogen peroxide can give off vapor that can detonate above 70 °C (158 °F) at normal atmospheric pressure.[citation needed] This can then cause a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) of the remaining liquid. Distillation of hydrogen peroxide at normal pressures is thus highly dangerous. 
2.Hazardous Reactions. Hydrogen peroxide vapors can form sensitive contact explosives with hydrocarbons such as greases. Hazardous reactions ranging from ignition to explosion have been reported with alcohols, ketones, carboxylic acids (particularly acetic acid), amines and phosphorus.[citation needed] 
3.Spontaneous Ignition. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide, if spilled on clothing (or other flammable materials), will preferentially evaporate water until the concentration reaches sufficient strength, at which point the material may spontaneously ignite. [39][40] 
4.Corrosive. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide (>50%) is corrosive, and even domestic-strength solutions can cause irritation to the eyes, mucous membranes and skin.[41] Swallowing hydrogen peroxide solutions is particularly dangerous, as decomposition in the stomach releases large quantities of gas (10 times the volume of a 3% solution) leading to internal bleeding. Inhaling over 10% can cause severe pulmonary irritation.[citation needed] 

Again from wikipedia.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2009)

I beg to differ, Civittone..those two propellents were extremely dangerous!

Shortround posted a good breakdown, and here's more:

*C-Stoff:*
Methanol CH3OH ~57% by Weight 
Hydrazine hydrate N2H4 . H2O ~30% by Weight 
Water H2O ~13% by Weight 
Catalyst 431 K3[Cu(CN)4] 

The proportions of the components in C-Stoff were developed to catalyse the decomposition of T-Stoff, promote combustion with the oxygen released by the decomposition, and sustain uniform combustion through sufficient quantity of the highly reactive hydrazine. The combination of the C-Stoff, used as a rocket fuel, with the T-Stoff used as the oxidizer, often resulted in spontaneous explosion from their combined nature as a hypergolic fuel combination, necessitating strict hygiene in fueling operations; there were numerous catastrophic explosions of the Messerschmitt Me 163 aircraft which employed this fuel system. Another hazard was toxicity to humans of each of the fuels.
(_Botho Stüwe, Peene Münde West, Weltbildverlag ISBN 3-8289-0294-4 1998_)

*T-Stoff:*
Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) ~95% by weight 
Stabilisers: Phosphoric acid, Sodium phosphate, 8-Oxyquinoline

Because of its extreme oxidizing potential, T-stoff was an extremely dangerous chemical to handle; so special rubberized suits were required when working with it, as it would react with most cloth or other combustible material and cause it to spontaneously combust.
(_Botho Stüwe, Peene Münde West, Weltbildverlag ISBN 3-8289-0294-4 1998_)

Each is volitile in it's own right, as noted above and once combined became extremely unstable. For example: T-Stoff on it's own was dangerous "_as it would react with most cloth or other combustible material and cause it to spontaneously combust_". Meaning it could not be exposed to wood (such as aircraft components) or clothing of anything other than rubber. That is to say that any material that could be set on fire with a match would instantly oxidize and burst into flames if T-Stoff came into contact with it. C-Stoff was aromatic, and any spark would touch it off it's vapors. 

As you can see, there was no "Bleach" involved in the Komet's propulsion system.

As far as "ghost stories", understand that the majority of spontaneous combustion incidents were filed in Luftwaffe reports. There was also strict guidelines for fueling and deployment of the Me163 that is well documented. In addition, these fuels were developed and tested by the rocket program at Peenemunde, so there is additional documentation in the way of development, testing and deployment.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm sorry guys. I went over that in a hurry. I have explained this stuff several times and I didn't want to go into detail. That's why I went with the simple bleach story.

If you want we can go and discuss in great lengths.

The bleach actually refers to the original Z-Stoff which was used as a catalyst for the first Walter engines for the Me 163A.

Both Stoffen can be dangerous on their own, as one can read in the explanations above. However, and this was my point, both T- and C-Stoff were not that dangerous IN the Me 163. And that is - I believe - what matters. The ghost stories are about Me 163s blowing up for no reason or incinerating the pilot in the seat. These are simply not true, at least not once the Me 163 was operational. That this is mainly the result of careful handling by Luftwaffe ground crew is most certain. Yet, however they achieved it, the result is that the Me 163 was not a dangerous aircraft. And not even when overturned. I may also add that - especially for such an advanced aircraft - very few non-combat losses occurred. I have a feeling the same cannot be said for the Me 262. 

Thanks to you both for going to the trouble of looking up the information on the rocket propellants.

Kris


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I'm sorry guys. I went over that in a hurry. I have explained this stuff several times and I didn't want to go into detail. That's why I went with the simple bleach story.
> 
> If you want we can go and discuss in great lengths.
> 
> ...


Well, perhaps this has been discussed in great detail as it is.

As you may (or may not) have noted in my text, the compounds when combined did indeed cause spontaneous combustion while the aircraft was parked, resulting in it's catastrophic loss. This is not to say that it happened often, but did occur. They specualted that the fuel lines may have corroded, or were leaking from a previous hard landing or poor fueling practice and so on.

I can see how entheusiastic you are about the Komet, and according to it's pilots it was indeed a "dove" to fly. But at the same time, it was a dangerous machine and not because of it's remarkable design, but it's propulsion.

By the way, Z-Stoff was either Calcium Permanganate or Potassium Permanganate mixed in water. It was used to decompose the T-Stoff which in turn, generated steam. That steam drove the fuel pumps but was prone to clogging the pumps because of it's reaction creating Manganese Dioxide.

I can see that a quick explanation might be handy, but sometimes folks who aren't as informed may form an incorrect conclusion with that abridged data


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 17, 2009)

The Zero for me.... ugly IMO


----------



## Civettone (Aug 18, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, perhaps this has been discussed in great detail as it is.
> 
> As you may (or may not) have noted in my text, the compounds when combined did indeed cause spontaneous combustion while the aircraft was parked, resulting in it's catastrophic loss. This is not to say that it happened often, but did occur. They specualted that the fuel lines may have corroded, or were leaking from a previous hard landing or poor fueling practice and so on.
> 
> ...


Hey I didn't know about the pumps getting clogged up. So it was only when the T-Stoff was mixed with the Z-Stoff? Or always when T-Stoff was envolved?

I'm sure there were several accidents - such as corroded fuel lines - but most problems were sorted by the time the aircraft became operational. And as such they cannot be held against the value of the aircraft.

I'm passionate about the Komet as I am with many aircraft. However I never lose my head over aircraft, and try to look at them objectively. However, when most of the opinions on the Komet are negative, I naturally tend to swing to the other side. I don't think the Me 163 was a superfighter nor the answer. For me the main problem, especially after May 1944, was its use of large quantities of rare chemicals such as methanol. I did a quick calculation on how much methanol a Geschwader would need and it's obvious that that would have stretched the reserves... 
On the other hand, that also explains to a certain extent why the Me 163 never became successful. At the end of 1944 - when a new Gruppe was installed - most were grounded. 

By that time the Me 163 was a well operated machine with good reports from the people who flew them. An interview with the main test pilot and later Gruppe commander Rudolf Opitz can be found on the internet for everyone to read. This man was the best person to ask about the Me 163 and he sets the record straight. If it wasn't for his accounts I would probably have accepted the usual negative stories about the Me 163. 

Thanks again for the input GG 
Kris


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 18, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Hey I didn't know about the pumps getting clogged up. So it was only when the T-Stoff was mixed with the Z-Stoff? Or always when T-Stoff was envolved?


When the Z-Stoff was injected into the T-Stoff to drive the pumps, is when the reaction occurred, and the Manganese Dioxide deposits started to form and build up inside of the pump circuit.



Civettone said:


> I'm passionate about the Komet as I am with many aircraft. ...


Trust me, I am a huge fan of the Komet, have been since I first saw it's picture in a book way back when I was in school (mid 70's). I was fascinated by it and read anything and everything I could to learn about it 

It's development was made possible by a collaboration of geniuses, especially Dr. Lippisch and it was the world's first and only operational rocket fighter.

It just can't get any cooler than that!


----------



## Civettone (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm a bit disappointed with that problem with the Z-Stoff. Especially for understanding the Komet a bit better, I actually started learning a bit about chemical reactions - first time since High School  - and it seems that all rocket fuels, with exception of Z- and maybe A-Stoff, were difficult to produce. The lack of suitable fuels after May 1944 would also have hampered the projected SAM projects which usually operated on Visol, Salbei, methanol and hydrazine compositions.

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 18, 2009)

What fuel did the V-2 use?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 18, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> What fuel did the V-2 use?


It used a combination of Liquid Oxygen and B-Stoff, which was basically Alcohol and Water.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 18, 2009)

And liquid oxygen also being called A-Stoff ... linking that to my post of which fuels were more easy to produce than others.


Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 19, 2009)

Could an Me-163 have been produced powered by A-Stoff and B-Stoff for the purpose of Kamikaze attacks on heavy bombers?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Could an Me-163 have been produced powered by A-Stoff and B-Stoff for the purpose of Kamikaze attacks on heavy bombers?


Good question, but I don't think the technology at the time would allow for such a small rocket motor being made that would use the V2's system.

Plus, the speeds that the V2 was able to acheive would have been fatal to the Komet.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 19, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Good question, but I don't think the technology at the time would allow for such a small rocket motor being made that would use the V2's system.
> 
> Plus, the speeds that the V2 was able to acheive would have been fatal to the Komet.


Well, disposable 163s could use their normal fuel, refueling wouldn't be an issue since they would go from brand new straight to nonexistent.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2009)

When I said the speeds would be fatal to the Komet, I meant the speeds the V2 travelled would be terminal and literally rip the Komet apart!

The V2 could achieve a maximum speed of 3,545 miles an hour. Building a piloted aircraft that could handle that was far beyond any technology at the time.

One of the reasons people never heard the V2 on it's approach to target was because it was supersonic. At least with the V1, you could tell when it was ready to attack...the engine would shut down which started it's dive sequence.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 19, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> When I said the speeds would be fatal to the Komet, I meant the speeds the V2 travelled would be terminal and literally rip the Komet apart!
> 
> The V2 could achieve a maximum speed of 3,545 miles an hour. Building a piloted aircraft that could handle that was far beyond any technology at the time.
> 
> One of the reasons people never heard the V2 on it's approach to target was because it was supersonic. At least with the V1, you could tell when it was ready to attack...the engine would shut down which started it's dive sequence.


I agree with you, I was just stating that there was no reason to change anything about the komet if it was going to be disposable anyway.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2009)

Ahh...gotcha.

Yeah, if they could have found a way to make the V2's motor smaller while keeping it cool, it would have been interesting to see what could have been.

As it stands, the V2's motor was intended to run at full throttle. So when the candle was lit, it was game on.


----------



## coffincorner (Aug 20, 2009)

Grew up believing the Spitfire was best so I've naturally gone the other way since:

Beautiful lines spoiled by the chunky radiator intakes under the wings (compare with the sleek 109's). 
Expensive wing design - were there any performance benefits when most other fighters were nonelliptical? 
Why on earth were the guns scattered across the wings when every other designer was doing their best to keep armament as close to the centreline as possible? 
The Hispano barrels look too long - there must have been a significant drag penalty - why weren't they shortened sooner?

Still, she's hard to beat in the looks dept: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsxTocDwUKA_


----------



## Waynos (Aug 20, 2009)

coffincorner said:


> Grew up believing the Spitfire was best so I've naturally gone the other way since:
> 
> Beautiful lines spoiled by the chunky radiator intakes under the wings (compare with the sleek 109's).



This is purely subjective to the individual of course, but to my eyes the Spitfire looked much better when the Mk IX saw the SAME radiators mounted under each wing, balancing its appearance. I always thought the various lumps and bumps blighted the 109 like warts, where the Spitfire always retained the smooth a graceful appearance. The sole exception for me being the XVIe which just looks wrong.



> Expensive wing design - were there any performance benefits when most other fighters were nonelliptical?


 and


> Why on earth were the guns scattered across the wings when every other designer was doing their best to keep armament as close to the centreline as possible?



According to Mitchell the elliptical wing was not a deliberate design aim, it, and the spread of the guns, were merely the result of putting 8 guns into the thinnest possible wing, this wing allowed the spitfire to have the lowest drag of any other piston fighter and was the fastest piston aircraft ever recorded in a dive, so it probably halped a bit. It also had benefits in agility.

Agree with the rest, and welcome


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 20, 2009)

Waynos said:


> This is purely subjective to the individual of course, but to my eyes the Spitfire looked much better when the Mk IX saw the SAME radiators mounted under each wing, balancing its appearance. I always thought the various lumps and bumps blighted the 109 like warts, where the Spitfire always retained the smooth a graceful appearance. The sole exception for me being the XVIe which just looks wrong.
> 
> and
> 
> ...


I always thought the P-51's laminar flow wings and Meredith Effect cooler gave it the lowest drag pound for pound.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 21, 2009)

What's a Meredith Effect cooler?



GrauGeist said:


> At least with the V1, you could tell when it was ready to attack...the engine would shut down which started it's dive sequence.


I've read that that was only true for the first series. A mechanical problem which was corrected soon after. But the idea that you could tell when it was going down stuck. My dad told me that that's what they had been told, and that must have been at the end of 1944 when they were attacking Antwerp.

Kris


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2009)

Civettone said:


> What's a Meredith Effect cooler?
> 
> I've read that that was only true for the first series. A mechanical problem which was corrected soon after. But the idea that you could tell when it was going down stuck. My dad told me that that's what they had been told, and that must have been at the end of 1944 when they were attacking Antwerp.
> 
> Kris


That was it's design 

It flew a certain amount of distance, held on course by it's gyros...then, when it reached it's destination, the engine shut off, and the guidance system commenced the dive to earth.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 21, 2009)

Civettone said:


> What's a Meredith Effect cooler?
> 
> Kris





> The design followed the best conventional practice of the era, but included two new features. One was a new NACA-designed laminar flow wing, which was associated with very low drag at high speeds.[4][5] Another was the use of a new radiator design (one Curtiss had been unable to make work) that used the heated air exiting the radiator as a form of jet thrust in what is referred to as the "Meredith Effect."
> 
> The employment of the principle of low velocity cooling avoids the necessity for an increasing expenditure of power with increasing speed provided the exit conditions are adjusted to suit the speed. Further the combined effects of compressibility and heat transfer from the radiator may reduce the power consumption to nothing if the size of the radiator is adequate. By the use of the heat of the exhaust, in addition, and appreciable thrust may be expected from the presence of the cooling stream.



basically, it's a radiator that funnels the air heated by it through a rocket nozzle that provides thrust, partially negating the drag of the radiator itself.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I always thought the P-51's laminar flow wings and Meredith Effect cooler gave it the lowest drag pound for pound.



I have read that the Mustang was some 30 mph faster than an equally engined spitfire. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the reference.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 21, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I have read that the Mustang was some 30 mph faster than an equally engined spitfire. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the reference.



Dave - the early RAF tests are a good place to start looking. 

The distinctive differences for same basic engine (and 700+ extra pounds for Mustang III (P-51B-1) were all about drag. Maybe the Meridith effect gave it a couple of mph - but maybe not.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 21, 2009)

Flight test data from spitfireperformance show that the Spitfire IX pulling 18# (67") had a top speed of 330 mph at SL. The P-51D pulling 67" had a top speed of 375 mph at SL. While the heat exchanger may have helped, it is doubtful that it made that big a difference.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 21, 2009)

davparlr said:


> Flight test data from spitfireperformance show that the Spitfire IX pulling 18# (67") had a top speed of 330 mph at SL. The P-51D pulling 67" had a top speed of 375 mph at SL. While the heat exchanger may have helped, it is doubtful that it made that big a difference.


there are also the laminar flow wings.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> there are also the laminar flow wings.



They were a major factor. As drgondog stated, detailed attention to drag was also a major factor.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 21, 2009)

Thanks Clay for the explanation on the radiator! Did any other aircraft use this type??



GrauGeist said:


> That was it's design
> 
> It flew a certain amount of distance, held on course by it's gyros...then, when it reached it's destination, the engine shut off, and the guidance system commenced the dive to earth.


I also found it on wiki: _While this was originally intended to be a power dive, in practice the dive caused the fuel flow to cease, which stopped the engine. The sudden silence after the buzzing alerted listeners of the impending impact. The fuel problem was quickly fixed, and when the last V-1 fell, the majority impacted under power._

So it seems that the fuel flow interruption was not intended. And 'quickly' fixed. I wonder what they mean by 'quickly' though ...
I really wonder if someone can shed some light on this!

Kris


----------



## Waynos (Aug 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I always thought the P-51's laminar flow wings and Meredith Effect cooler gave it the lowest drag pound for pound.



According to sources I have read (A J Jackson, J Glancey and A Price among them) the Spitfires low drag wing was what allowed it to beat all other piston fighters in terminal velocity dive tests (the ones where the prop came off one aircraft at m=0.9 estimated), an investigation into exactly why this was the case despite the Mustang's more modern laminar flow wing revealed 'imperfections' in the finish on the Mustang that gave it higher than predicted drag and in conjunction with naca the finish of production Mustangs was improved, but they never achieved a better drag rating that the Spitfire. This is not knocking the Mustang, Supermarines own laminar flow fighter, the Spiteful, also turned out to be draggier than the Spitfire and this was a source of great disappointment and frustration to Joe Smith. This has been attributed to a combination of the fineness ratio, aerofoil section and the slight twist in the wing of the Spit form what I remember, but as a student of the historical rather than the aerodynamic theory I don't pretend to fully understand this explanation.

edit to add. Having seen the other replies I had better add, I am specifically talking about what was found during terminal velocity dive tests and not at level flight speeds, it was that the Spitfire was somehow less dramatically affected by the rapid rise in transonic drag than the others, I don't know why that would be the case so I can't argue the point, just reporting it.


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 22, 2009)

Waynos said:


> edit to add. Having seen the other replies I had better add, I am specifically talking about what was found during terminal velocity dive tests and not at level flight speeds, it was that the Spitfire was somehow less dramatically affected by the rapid rise in transonic drag than the others, I don't know why that would be the case so I can't argue the point, just reporting it.


The Spit also had a lower t/c ratio which would help.


----------



## coffincorner (Aug 22, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Agree with the rest, and welcome



Thank you.



Waynos said:


> I always thought the various lumps and bumps blighted the 109 like warts, where the Spitfire always retained the smooth a graceful appearance.



Have to say I quite like the warts - the Germans seemed to fiddle with their designs more than the Allies, trying to extract every last ounce(gram) of performance out of their machines. For me it makes for more interesting reading.



Waynos said:


> the spread of the guns, were merely the result of putting 8 guns into the thinnest possible wing



That's understandable in the early marks. But how come there were still .303 'rattles' in the outer wings years later? They should have handed over the Spit to Kurt Tank for a makeover - he'd have sorted her out with wingroot synchronised cannons rüstsätze kits in a jiffy..


----------



## Waynos (Aug 22, 2009)

coffincorner said:


> Have to say I quite like the warts - the Germans seemed to fiddle with their designs more than the Allies, trying to extract every last ounce(gram) of performance out of their machines. For me it makes for more interesting reading.



The Spitfire was the most 'fiddled with' fighter of the war, just ahead, I believe, of the 109 and its development brought more success than the 109, whose 1945 model model trailed far behind the equivalent Spitfire in many respects. Maybe there is more to the Spit than you realise? It can get caricatured in Battle of Britain mode. Alfred Price's 'The Spitfire Story' is an excellent read.It covers all versions from mk 1 to 47, including photo recce, seaplane, and many other versions. I am actually looking for an equivalent book on the 109 if you know of one?



> That's understandable in the early marks. But how come there were still .303 'rattles' in the outer wings years later? They should have handed over the Spit to Kurt Tank for a makeover - he'd have sorted her out with wingroot synchronised cannons rüstsätze kits in a jiffy..



I would have to look up the answer to that, except to say that later Spitfires did have .50's alongside the cannon, while others just had 4 x 20mm so the .303 was not retained all the time, though possibly too long yes.

I disagree that Tank could have done any better, synchronised guns would have needed new structure, added more weight and a lower rate of fire, so I'll stick with the 4 20mm of the later models.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2009)

coffincorner said:


> That's understandable in the early marks. But how come there were still .303 'rattles' in the outer wings years later? They should have handed over the Spit to Kurt Tank for a makeover - he'd have sorted her out with wingroot synchronised cannons rüstsätze kits in a jiffy..



THe Hispano was never synchronised and may have been incapable of being synchronised so unless Kurt can come up with a new cannon the wing root option is out. 
Spitfire also had a big enough wing so that you could put worthwhile armament both outside the propellor arc and inside the wing at the same time. less need for rüstsätze kits if your fighter can carry effective armament ALL the time. 
I am not arguing wing mounted vrs centerline armament. But 2 Hispanos aren't really horrible all by themselves and extra .50s or the late model four 20mm means that for anything the Germans were using extra firepower wasn't needed.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 22, 2009)

And Kurt Tank never managed to do anything in a jiffy, just look at how long he took to develop the Fw 190D...

I agree on the Spit having more development potential than the Bf 109. It was bigger to start with.
Kris


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2009)

Civettone said:


> And Kurt Tank never managed to do anything in a jiffy, just look at how long he took to develop the Fw 190D...
> 
> I agree on the Spit having more development potential than the Bf 109. It was bigger to start with.
> Kris



Its also true to say that the Spifire had fewer changes. 

The Spit V was basically a Spit I with a bigger engine. 
The Spit IX was a Spit V with a bigger engine
The Spit XII was a Spit V with a Griffon engine
The Spit XIV was based on the Spit VIII with a bigger engine

The 109F was very different to the 109E
The 109G was based on the 109F but had a number of changes in its life
The 109K was different to the 109G combining all the best of the changes to the 109G


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 23, 2009)

davparlr said:


> While the heat exchanger may have helped, it is doubtful that it made that big a difference.


What is the basis for your doubts?

_Atwood maintained an active 'retirement' schedule, corresponding with members of industry and authors, writing technical papers and attending as many aerospace-related events as possible. In July 1998, having just returned from a second trip in two years to England to lecture on the aerodynamic virtues of the P-51, Atwood was eager to discuss history as well as a few more recent events in aerospace.

During World War II, everyone was trying to figure out how the P-51 Mustang was out-performing German fighters as well as the British Spitfire, which had more horsepower and was 1,000 pounds lighter. The German aircraft manufacturer, Messerschmitt, was also researching the Mustang's performance to no avail. 

Atwood explained, "Both the British and German engineers at the time thought you could test a scale model in a wind tunnel. But the wind tunnel models didn't generate the engine-heat factor, which we successfully controlled within the air scoop to create positive thrust. They were all looking at Mustang's laminar flow wing, which was noted for reducing air friction over the surface of aircraft wings."

Pointing to several mathematical equations, Atwood continued, "The laminar flow wing is great for jet airplanes or in a high-speed dive but had little effect on the P-51's overall performance envelope. You have to attribute the speed increase to the radiator energy recovery (positive thrust), not the characteristic of the wing itself. The wing did help in a dive -- not in level flight. I never mentioned this to anyone during the war."

Atwood credited F.W. Meredith of the RAE Farnborough, U.K., whose August 1935 report known as the Meredith Effect greatly influenced his work on the P-51 cooling radiator._


----------



## Civettone (Aug 23, 2009)

You're right GLider. You could also have thrown in the Bf 109A-D. 



Colin1 said:


> _During World War II, everyone was trying to figure out how the P-51 Mustang was out-performing German fighters as well as the British Spitfire, which had more horsepower and was 1,000 pounds lighter. The German aircraft manufacturer, Messerschmitt, was also researching the Mustang's performance to no avail.
> 
> Atwood explained, "Both the British and German engineers at the time thought you could test a scale model in a wind tunnel. But the wind tunnel models didn't generate the engine-heat factor, which we successfully controlled within the air scoop to create positive thrust. They were all looking at Mustang's laminar flow wing, which was noted for reducing air friction over the surface of aircraft wings."
> 
> ...


THAT is simply astonishing information! 
Thanks for sharing Colin !!

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 23, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> What is the basis for your doubts?
> 
> _Atwood maintained an active 'retirement' schedule, corresponding with members of industry and authors, writing technical papers and attending as many aerospace-related events as possible. In July 1998, having just returned from a second trip in two years to England to lecture on the aerodynamic virtues of the P-51, Atwood was eager to discuss history as well as a few more recent events in aerospace.
> 
> ...


A lot of people here treat the Meredith Effect as science fiction and don't believe it worked. I think it at least cancelled most of the radiator drag which was considerable on any fighter plane.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 23, 2009)

Glider said:


> Its also true to say that the Spifire had fewer changes.
> 
> The Spit V was basically a Spit I with a bigger engine.
> The Spit IX was a Spit V with a bigger engine
> ...



In most accounts I have read it is stated that by the time it reached the K model the 109 was 'ruined', which is roughyl also where the Spitfire XIV was at before later models pulled it back again.(I paraphrase of course)

I noticed you stopped counting at 14. Conveniently. The mere comparison of a Spitfire 24 with the Spitfire 1 must disprove that claim. It is an oft repeated truth that the Spitfire more than doubled its weight, more than doubled its power, increased its weight of fire by a factor of five and gained 100mph between 1939 and 1945.
No single type went through more development and changes during WW2 than the Spitfire, that must be true because Price, Henshaw, Quill etc all say so. And I believe them


----------



## coffincorner (Aug 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> The Spitfire was the most 'fiddled with' fighter of the war, just ahead, I believe, of the 109 and its development brought more success than the 109, whose 1945 model model trailed far behind the equivalent Spitfire in many respects. Maybe there is more to the Spit than you realise?



If you compare the number of armament changes the 109 and the Spitfire went through which design looks more fiddled with?

Whatever their respective performance I'm illogically siding with the 109 for that reason. In the same way I prefer the insane He 177 over the dependable Lanc. She makes more interesting bedtime reading (yes I'm single). 



Waynos said:


> Alfred Price's 'The Spitfire Story' is an excellent read.It covers all versions from mk 1 to 47, including photo recce, seaplane, and many other versions. I am actually looking for an equivalent book on the 109 if you know of one?



Thanks for the book recommendation. I'm afraid 109wise it's wikipedia all the way for this expert.


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> In most accounts I have read it is stated that by the time it reached the K model the 109 was 'ruined', which is roughyl also where the Spitfire XIV was at before later models pulled it back again.(I paraphrase of course)
> 
> I noticed you stopped counting at 14. Conveniently. The mere comparison of a Spitfire 24 with the Spitfire 1 must disprove that claim. It is an oft repeated truth that the Spitfire more than doubled its weight, more than doubled its power, increased its weight of fire by a factor of five and gained 100mph between 1939 and 1945.
> No single type went through more development and changes during WW2 than the Spitfire, that must be true because Price, Henshaw, Quill etc all say so. And I believe them



I can continue if you wish, I only stopped at XIV as most people would agree that this was the last major version that served in numbers during the war, not because it was convenient.

Its also true to say that the Spifire had fewer changes. 

The Spit V was basically a Spit I with a bigger engine. 
The Spit IX was a Spit V with a bigger engine
The Spit XII was a Spit V with a Griffon engine
The Spit XIV was based on the Spit VIII with a bigger engine
The Spit XVIII was based on the Spit XIV
The Spit 21 was the first basic redesign siince the Mk I. The main difference was in the wing which was redesigned with new control surfaces and it lost the gentle curve of the classic Spitfire wing plus the standard payload was 4 x 20mm. It was such a major change that the resulting aircraft was almost renamed the Victor but the Fuselage was clearly a Spitfire

The aircraft grew in weight and power as the engines weighed more and needed additional fuel, plus you don't find many aircraft that were more flexible than the Spitfire. It was afterall very successful at all altitudes and the change from a Low Level, normal and high level plane was little more than a change of wingtips and a tweek to the engine. The PR versions were the best single engined PR aircraft anywhere and arguably better than the twin engined types.
That said, the basic design stayed more or less the same through the entire war. That was the beauty of the original design, it was right first time.

The 109F was very different to the 109E
The 109G was based on the 109F but had a number of changes in its life
The 109K was different to the 109G combining all the best of the changes to the 109G


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2009)

I have read that the British were aware of the Meredith Effect and tried to use it in the design of the radiators on all but the earliest Spitfires. They just didn't do as good a job of it.

The use of exhaust gases as an aid to propulsion was also brought up in the same paper/lecture (?)


----------



## Civettone (Aug 23, 2009)

Any other examples of aircraft using the Meredith effect? 


Glider, I do have to say that the 109G changes were rather minimal. Some armour, bulges and lengthened rudder. And that for a production period of 2 years. The 109K hardly differed from the G-10. And strangely enough, the K looks a lot like the F !! 
It's mainly the A-D versions which proves your point. The 109 already had a lengthy development behind it when it encountered the Spit I.

Kris


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 23, 2009)

But I am trying to change that with subscriptions to Fly Past and Aeroplane!


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 24, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Any other examples of aircraft using the Meredith effect?


Plenty
the effect was discovered round about WWI by Junkers, I forget the exact date but it pre-dated WWII considerably. It wasn't so much 'any other examples', all the major aircraft designers were aware of it, it is just that no-one really exploited it as efficiently and effectively as the NAA team did; the shape and configuration of the air scoop, once perfected from the earlier versions, became the de facto standard for scoop design.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 24, 2009)

Glider, your rewrite is good and I do see your appreciation of the Spitfire coming through. Only one minor point, maybe it was a typo or maybe I am wrong, but wasnt the XX series going to be called 'Victory'? At least thats what I think I read.

Spitfire wise I am not merely thinking of the linear progression of the type, but also many of the offshoots, for example the many different PR models, the seaplanes, the propulsion by 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6blade contra props, the switch from canvass to metal control surfaces, the change to bubble canopies (and confusingly, back again) , the fitment of pressure cabins, conversions of two seaters with the second seat being placed either behind or ahead of the original cockpit, depending on who did it and several other examples of changes that all add to the great variance there was during the Spitfires lifetime.

I admit I am no expert on the 109 (witness my request for a book recommendation earlier) but I cannot see so much variety in the 109. Could I be a pain in the arse and ask for some examples?


----------



## Civettone (Aug 24, 2009)

Well, take a look here to start with







Kris


----------



## Waynos (Aug 25, 2009)

Thanks for the image civettone, but that actually reinforces what I was saying, rather than contradicting it. There are far more differences to be seen in side profiles of Spits. Look at a mk 1, mkIX, Mk XII, PR.XI, Mk XIV, Mk. XVIe, Mk, 21 and Mk.24, also compare first to last, and then factor in the 'offshoots' I mentioned earlier such as the trainer with added rear cockpit and trainer with added front cockpit for example. However I am not so shallow as to not realise that externals are only a part of the story. 

I don't see this as a 'competition' or anything, I would just like to know why the 109 is thought of as being altered more than the Spit was.


----------



## Vitamin J (Aug 25, 2009)

For me it would have to be the Brewster Buffalo. Just for the reason that the Brits stationed in Burma with Chennault and The Tigers thought their piece of crap was superior to the tiger's P-40's when the P-40 was better suited to fight the japs due to its armor (and the fact that the japs were only firing 30's.) and the Brewster was only good at taking down Soviets... And how did those tubby things manage that? And why was the RAF using a Finnish plane anyway?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 25, 2009)

Vitamin J said:


> And why was the RAF using a Finnish plane anyway?


The F2A Brewster "Buffalo" was manufactured by the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation based out of Queens, New York and Newark, New Jersey.

It was American.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 25, 2009)

Vitamin J said:


> For me it would have to be the Brewster Buffalo. Just for the reason that the Brits stationed in Burma with Chennault and The Tigers thought their piece of crap was superior to the tiger's P-40's when the P-40 was better suited to fight the japs due to its armor (and the fact that the japs were only firing 30's.) and the Brewster was only good at taking down Soviets... And how did those tubby things manage that? And why was the RAF using a Finnish plane anyway?



I don't believe the Brewster ever fought the Soviets as well.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 25, 2009)

VB, 

I think you might be mistaken about that. As far as I know, the Finns DID use the Buffalo to fight the soviets.

Vick


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2009)

Actually, the Finns flew the Buffalo brilliantly against the Soviets.

The F2A-1 was denavalized for the Finns, and designated the B-239...they had a nickname for it, I don't recall what it is...but they never referred to it as the Buffalo.


----------



## vanir (Aug 26, 2009)

I think it was the F2A-2 that was the B-239. Their combat record with it is very impressive indeed and it was quite popular and effective with the Finns...but I guess the choices were things like the Fiat G.50 with an open cockpit...tell me that wouldn't be cold in the arctic up there.
Plus the a/c typically fought were very early LaGG-3 and Yak-1 builds or I-152/3 and I-16, most often their sorties were bomber interception in any case against which the Buffalo would probably do okay since it's not exactly facing down B-17s or anything, and they probably flew mixed sorties with Luftwaffe types from JG5.

I didn't know much about the Brewster Buffalo, except for what I heard from RAAF people that it was a pretty good plane at the time. Then I flew one in the IL2 game, yes I know it's not a true flight sim, but still was so disappointed (I crashed the thing continually) I did a bit of research on the type.

The more heavily equipped F2A-3 in service with the USMC in 1942 was apparently quite unstable in flight, something the design was already noted for and possibly the reason it was replaced by the F4F early on, where back in prototype testing the XF4F-2 actually lost out to the XF2A-2 which was tested under harsh USN procedural guidelines at the time for 9g dive pullouts.
The stubby little Buffalo was definitely a very solid little machine, and an inherent instability isn't real bad for outright manoeuvrability.

But as the combat record indicates, against the A6M2 the contemporary of the F4F-3, which was the F2A-3 was lost to the very last ship at Midway, most are of the opinion it stood little chance in front line combat by that time where the Wildcat managed to soldier on only slightly obsolete if at all.


My vote for irrational hatred is probably the Buffalo too, and the G.50 as I can't really stand either. If I was in the USMC the day I saw the Wildcat-3 replacing the Buffalo would be the happiest time of knowing that little waste of metal, it's a boat anchor to me. I'd rather fly a P-40B given the choice.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 26, 2009)

I think the Buffalo has gotton something of a bad rap. The actual design may not have been so bad but the execution may have been terrible.

The Finns did get F2A-1s from a Navy contract while the Navy deferred their deliveries to a later model.

Newer models got such improvements as more fuel tanks, total capacity was 240 US gallons which almost makes the Mustang look like a piker, and is double that of a Hurricane, Spitfire or 109. considering it's engine wasn't as powerful this couldn't be good for performance. Some rather rediculous ammo loads didn't help things either. 600rpg for the fuselage guns and 800rpg for the wing guns

THe engine situation was really icing on the cake. THe US refused to allow the export of 'military' model engines and since, as the story goes, Wright couldn't supply Cyclones fast enough (or cheap enough?) many export Buffalos got ex-airliner engines that had been overhauled. Apparently not all these re-builds were of the same quality leading to widely different performance in the same squadron. And/or perhaps not all Buffalos had the same supercharger gears? 

Combine this with Green (to combat) pilots using bad tatics and your results are not likily to be good. 

I believe the Midway combat was the ONLY combat the Buffalo saw in US service and there are a number of other aircraft who's initial combat debute wasn't very good. 

A Buffalo with a new 2 speed engine (not 2 stage) carring half the ammo and fuel and flown by combat experienced pilots might have had a different record. Not saying it was as good as an F4F


----------



## Vitamin J (Aug 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I think the Buffalo has gotton something of a bad rap. The actual design may not have been so bad but the execution may have been terrible.
> 
> The Finns did get F2A-1s from a Navy contract while the Navy deferred their deliveries to a later model.



It must have been pretty bad to be nicknamed The Flying Coffin. The navy knew wat they had and sold it to whoever would take them. The Finnish took what they could afford and did their best with it fighting the Soviets and succeeded. Wish I could say the same about the Brits using it to fight the japs.I think part of the reason for that was the B-339E had the underpowered Wright R-1820-G-105 Cyclone engine and the extra weight (around 900 pounds) Where did the extra weight come from?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 26, 2009)

Vitamin J said:


> It must have been pretty bad to be nicknamed The Flying Coffin. The navy knew wat they had and sold it to whoever would take them. The Finnish took what they could afford and did their best with it fighting the Soviets and succeeded. Wish I could say the same about the Brits using it to fight the japs.I think part of the reason for that was the B-339E had the underpowered Wright R-1820-G-105 Cyclone engine and the extra weight (around 900 pounds) Where did the extra weight come from?


Read "Bloody Shambles." Although the RAF Buffs were overwhelmed by the Japanese, they didn't do as bad as one may think.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2009)

Vitamin J said:


> It must have been pretty bad to be nicknamed The Flying Coffin. The navy knew wat they had and sold it to whoever would take them. The Finnish took what they could afford and did their best with it fighting the Soviets and succeeded. Wish I could say the same about the Brits using it to fight the japs.I think part of the reason for that was the B-339E had the underpowered Wright R-1820-G-105 Cyclone engine and the extra weight (around 900 pounds) Where did the extra weight come from?



Try Wikipedia entry: Brewster Buffalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which isn't too bad and try :http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm


----------



## cuccos19 (Oct 10, 2009)

I don't hate any aircrafts. I just feel that some aircraft is overrated and some others are underrated. For example P51Mustang vs P38Lightning. Always talk about how exceptional/fantastic/unmatchable was the Mustang, and always talk about how bad was the Lightning. Simply not true. Mustang was a tricky aircraft, handling was slugish, weak protection of engine (which only had one, bad for an escort fighter deep over enemy territory), etc... Lightning was a very good aircraft if used the right tactics, feed with the right fuel. More versatile than the most other aircrafts. Some twinengined could matched or did better as an attacker, but non of the twinengined were as good fighter as the Lightning.

I also feel underrated the P40 Hawks, Hawker Hurricane, etc...

So I don't hate any aircraft. I only would hate that one, what crash when I fly by it or sit on it...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2009)

cuccos19 said:


> I don't hate any aircrafts. I just feel that some aircraft is overrated and some others are underrated. For example P51Mustang vs P38Lightning. Always talk about how exceptional/fantastic/unmatchable was the Mustang, and always talk about how bad was the Lightning. Simply not true. Mustang was a tricky aircraft, handling was slugish, weak protection of engine (which only had one, bad for an escort fighter deep over enemy territory), etc... Lightning was a very good aircraft if used the right tactics, feed with the right fuel. More versatile than the most other aircrafts. Some twinengined could matched or did better as an attacker, but non of the twinengined were as good fighter as the Lightning.
> 
> I also feel underrated the P40 Hawks, Hawker Hurricane, etc...
> 
> So I don't hate any aircraft. I only would hate that one, what crash when I fly by it or sit on it...



You seem badly misinformed regarding over all reliability and survivability of the P-38 vs the P-51 in the ETO. 

The ratio of enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground (versus lost to strafing) between the two was far lower for the P-38 than the Mustang. The P-47 was also more effective than the Lightning and less effective than the Mustang in the 8th AF. Efficiency in this definition is the ratio of enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground (and air) to the number of US fighters lost in the ETO. 

If you have another definition please tell me what you wish to use?

Without comparing actual sorties against heavily defended targets it is difficult to truly compare. AFAIK they do not exist but the P-38 lost more (by 2x) strafing compared to the number of aircraft destroyed than the P-51.

When the design changes (intercooler, manuever flaps, boosted ailerons) were made to the last series of J and all L versions of the P-38, it was both more reliable in the very cold ETO skies as well as more manueverable..


----------



## marshall (Oct 10, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Efficiency in this definition is the ratio of enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground (and air) to the number of US fighters lost in the ETO.



I don't agree with cuccos19 but I have a question, how would this statistics looked like if it was a ratio of enemy aircraft destroyed to the number of US fighters used in the ETO?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 10, 2009)

marshall said:


> I don't agree with cuccos19 but I have a question, how would this statistics looked like if it was a ratio of enemy aircraft destroyed to the number of US fighters used in the ETO?



That is a good question - and probably needs to be examined period by period. 

Far more German aircraft were destroyed by Mustangs in the four months February through May 1944 than January through April 1945 when nearly all of the 8th AF (except 56th FG) were Mustang orgs. So take just the 8th AF as it had the dominant % of Mustangs (including the attached 354 Pioneer Mustang Group). Virtually all of the 9th AF was P-47, then gradually building up P-38 force as 8th got rid of them.

The 9th AF ratios were far lower than 8th AF for both the P-47 and P-38 in comparison to Mustangs... so let's deal with 8th AF only

In that same period (Feb-May, 1944) more LW fighters were shot down by first two (354 and 1/2 of 357), then three plus (354, 357, 4 and 2/3 355), then four plus (364, 357, 4, 355 and 1/2 352) then six (354, 357, 4, 355, 352, 339) Mustang Groups over those four months than all of the other 11 P-47/3 P-38 (Feb 1944) to 7 P-47/4 P-38 (May 1944) groups combined. So during this period the Mustangs were flying 1.5/16, 3.6/16, 4.5/16 and 5/16 of the sorties for approximately 70% of the credits - far out of proportion to the sorties (~ 13%).

In this period the number of sorties per group per mission were the same - but only the P-51s and P-38s were getting into most of the air battles over Germany where the action was... so even on the per sortie comparison the 51 was far higher than the Jug and Lightning - simply because they were where the action was - over Germany not France and Belgium where only JG2 and JG 26 were located.

The 38 did not do well despite being over Germany. I believe the primary factor was that is was huge, distinctive, easy to spot first and enabled the LW pilots to decide whether to stalk or slip away - depending on tactical advantage. The Mustang on the other hand looks like a 109 from a distance.

There were periods when the 8th AF jugs could compete - Normandy campaign, Operation Market Garden, and Battle of Bulge were good air fight opportunities where range was not an issue and the P-47 groups did well.

The aircraft were pretty evenly matched when the P-47D-25 and P-38J-25 and P-38L were in theatre - but most of the big air battles were over.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Oct 12, 2009)

Since this is the illogical thread, I'll make the subjective statement that the P-38 always seemed to me a lot like a supermodel girlfriend: beautiful but high maintenance. By the time that enough bugs were worked out for her to work in the ETO, the Air forces there had already "broken up with her" and moved on to their new girlfriend, the Girl-Next-Door Mustang.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 14, 2009)

Clay - to extend the analogy, she was also better looking, high performance, cheap and went down faster...works for me


----------



## Clay_Allison (Oct 14, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Clay - to extend the analogy, she was also better looking, high performance, cheap and went down faster...works for me


The Mustang is definitely the girl to marry.


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Oct 15, 2009)

.....so one could say the P47 was a portly "broad"


----------



## Clay_Allison (Oct 15, 2009)

Guns'n'Props said:


> .....so one could say the P47 was a portly "broad"


The P-47 was the hefty rebound girlfriend that you feel bad about dumping because she's nice, but you just don't feel any chemistry with her.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 15, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The P-47 was the hefty rebound girlfriend that you feel bad about dumping because she's nice, but you just don't feel any chemistry with her.



And she is a fast roller and diver..


----------



## gepp (Oct 19, 2009)

glad to see im not the only one that picked P-51 Mustang at least i know im not alone now i have 5 that i Have an Illogical Hatred for 

P-51 Mustang
Avro Lancaster
p-39 airacobra
Mitsubishi G4M "Betty"
Macchi M.C.200 Saetta


----------



## jamierd (Oct 19, 2009)

the spitfire am sick of hearing how it won the battle of britain


----------



## Marcel (Oct 19, 2009)

I dislike the P38. I always thought it to be a bad copy of the G.1, as made by the US got all the votes. This of course is utterly untrue, hence the "illogical"


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2009)

I'll vote vote the Fokker G.1 then. 

Grapje, Marcel
Kris


----------



## Marcel (Oct 20, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I'll vote vote the Fokker G.1 then.
> 
> Grapje, Marcel
> Kris



No problem, as long as it is Illogical


----------



## Civettone (Oct 20, 2009)

LOL !!


Kris


----------

