# Greatest Aircraft of World War Two.



## cheddar cheese (Sep 12, 2005)

-- Poll ended --


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 12, 2005)

minibloke?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 12, 2005)

I was thinkin' that when I had to send Audioslave songs to him. Which I have to say never worked because Yahoo! can't handle them!


----------



## Pisis (Sep 13, 2005)

is minibloke the same as minidick?


----------



## kiwimac (Sep 13, 2005)

Now chaps!

One should never make fun of anothers .... shortcomings!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 14, 2005)

No....Its minibloke822, because:

A) At the time I had a mini that I was adamant I would never sell 
B) Im a bloke (Open to debate though)
C) My racing number was 822 (but I later changed it to 802)



All votes have been registered, sadly I wont be able to reply thought because...I cant be arsed to


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2006)

so we're never going to know the results?


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 29, 2006)

Doubt it. Although the winner is fairly obvious according to all the threads we have had on it...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2006)

you're right, the Lancaster it is


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2006)

I was hoping response would be a little greater than it was, in over 9 month weve only had about 120 results  Here are the results though, may as well end voting now.

Supermarine Spitfire: 18 
North American P-51: 15
Lockheed P-38: 13
De Havilland Mosquito: 10
Messerschmitt Bf-109: 7
Boeing B-17: 7
Boeing B-29: 6
Republic P-47: 6
Messerschmitt Me-262: 6
Douglas C-47: 5
Chance-Vought F4U: 5
Focke-Wulf Fw-190: 4
Focke-Wulf Ta-152: 3
Avro Lancaster: 3
Hawker Hurricane: 2
Northrop P-61: 1
Ilyushin IL-2: 1
Consolidated B-24: 1
Grumman F4F Wildcat: 1
Hawker Typhoon: 1
Junkers Ju-87: 1
Grumman F6F Hellcat: 1


I can safely say this whole thing was a failure!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 29, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> I was hoping response would be a little greater than it was, in over 9 month weve only had about 120 results  Here are the results though, may as well end voting now.
> 
> Supermarine Spitfire: 18
> North American P-51: 15
> ...



I voted for the Storch!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2006)

I should have!


----------



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

that's cirtainly interesting, i'm glad the spitfire won, and who voted P-61


----------



## lancasterman (Jul 2, 2006)

The lancaster for sure no contest!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Okay well if that is the case, then why is the Lancaster the best. Why is it better than aircraft that were more capable and accomplished more?


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 2, 2006)

Nooooo! There's two of them!


----------



## 361st_Xabre (Jul 2, 2006)

Well if you fly IL2 with all its myriad of patches,and if the flight models are correct, and if you realize that there is a definite favoritism towards a certain Russian LA series of aircraft, and your pretty much an F.N.G. ,and all you can fly is a certain LA series of fighter,and you realize that all the allied aircraft such as the Jug, Pony, Lightning,F6F ,F4U series, and Corsair series, pretty much all the American fighters are so under modeled that all there really good for is Z. B.and getting blown out of the air with a certain series of LA Russian aircraft, and in all fairness a certain 25 pounder that seems to defy its parameters of the real fighter.
To be fair as far as I am concerned the IL2 series of flight Simms are without question the best in the virtual sky's bar none.
So to answer the original question "what is the best fighter of WWII" ....................wait for it.............the Mitsubishi A6MC model, Yes your all probably scratching you heads saying WTF ..is he on Crack? Actually no I'm not , if you take the basic design of this fighter its maneuverability ,its fire power its climb rate.etc ,from about 1939 to about 1942 it was the most deadly fighter in the sky in any theater of operation. Now having said this the A6M the Mits was a victim of the ideological beliefs,a feudal militarism,a none willingness to improve the fighter to keep up with ...lets say the American fighters
The Japanese designers never really improved the power plant to compete with the Grumman series of aircraft they never protected there pilots so as a consequence they lost there best.
To make along story short , it the Japanese would have kept up with there opponents, and put the time and effort into improving on the same scale as the Germans,British,Russians ,and Americans, the Marianas Turkey Shoot may have had a differant out come

X


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2006)

The _Zeke_ was too slow to be considered the best aircraft of World War II. In 1941, the Germans and British had already surpassed the _Zeke_ comfortably with the introduction of the Bf-109F, Fw-190A and Spitfire Mk.V. All of which would out-pace the A6M and dictate combat at will. The Spitfire Mk.V did, in fact, come into contact with the _Zeke_ in 1943. The pace of the Spitfire proved it to be a superior machine, and when kept at pace would make easy kills over the _Zeke_. 

Even in the early stages of the war, the A6M's ability was only so powerful because the shroud of myth preceeded it into battle. Once the facts had been realised about the A6M, it was soon a losing plane.


----------



## Hooks (Jul 2, 2006)

2 weeks ago, the Willow Grove Naval Air Base had an Air Fest. One of the planes that interested me was a B-24 Liberator bomber. I noticed there was no bubble turret on top. the nose has one 50 Cal. gun , no turret like the photos I've seen of B-24s. I talked to the person who said they had flown it in from Oklahoma it was a prototype of the B-24. He said B-24s are very rare there are only a few left in the world. He described that the plane had various models assignments-anti-sub, observation, bombing. It operated in all theaters, North Africa, Pacific, Europe. I said it was a sturdy aircraft but didn't quite get the publicity or recognition was overshadowed by the B-17 Flying Fortress. He said that's true.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

Don't eve begin bringing in sims to make these types of comparisons - no PC sim will ever get you remotely close to the really flying, let alone determining aircraft performance.

The Zero was an over-rated propaganda machine, although deadly in the right hands it never achieved more than a 2 to 1 kill ratio over inferior Western aircraft and that was only for a very short period!!!


----------



## lancasterman (Jul 2, 2006)

This is a real life plane comparison.
I am biased towards the lanc but having worked on the beast for longer than I care to remember she does grow on you.
I cannot think of any otehr plane that had the range and could carry the bombload that the lancaster could for its time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

lancasterman said:


> This is a real life plane comparison.
> I am biased towards the lanc but having worked on the beast for longer than I care to remember she does grow on you.
> I cannot think of any otehr plane that had the range and could carry the bombload that the lancaster could for its time.



The B-29.......


----------



## lancasterman (Jul 2, 2006)

DOnt think it could carry the grandslam or tallboy


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

lancasterman said:


> DOnt think it could carry the grandslam or tallboy


It didn't have to - it carried Little Boy and fatman instead...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 3, 2006)

Ouch.........


----------



## evangilder (Jul 3, 2006)

SNAP! Great comeback, Joe!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It didn't have to - it carried Little Boy and fatman instead...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

361st_Xabre said:


> Well if you fly IL2 with all its myriad of patches,and if the flight models are correct, and if you realize that there is a definite favoritism towards a certain Russian LA series of aircraft, and your pretty much an F.N.G. ,and all you can fly is a certain LA series of fighter,and you realize that all the allied aircraft such as the Jug, Pony, Lightning,F6F ,F4U series, and Corsair series, pretty much all the American fighters are so under modeled that all there really good for is Z. B.and getting blown out of the air with a certain series of LA Russian aircraft, and in all fairness a certain 25 pounder that seems to defy its parameters of the real fighter.
> To be fair as far as I am concerned the IL2 series of flight Simms are without question the best in the virtual sky's bar none.
> So to answer the original question "what is the best fighter of WWII" ....................wait for it.............the Mitsubishi A6MC model, Yes your all probably scratching you heads saying WTF ..is he on Crack? Actually no I'm not , if you take the basic design of this fighter its maneuverability ,its fire power its climb rate.etc ,from about 1939 to about 1942 it was the most deadly fighter in the sky in any theater of operation. Now having said this the A6M the Mits was a victim of the ideological beliefs,a feudal militarism,a none willingness to improve the fighter to keep up with ...lets say the American fighters
> The Japanese designers never really improved the power plant to compete with the Grumman series of aircraft they never protected there pilots so as a consequence they lost there best.
> ...




Oh boy here we go another computer chair pilot! Il-2 and no Simulator will tell you which aircraft is the greatest. Sorry bud!


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> lancasterman said:
> 
> 
> > DOnt think it could carry the grandslam or tallboy
> ...



 Joe. I have read somewhere that the B-29 could carry 2 Grandslams but don't quote me on that, still Little Boy or Fatman would cause more damage, so the -29 didn't need to carry either as Joe said.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

The B-29 is handsdown the greatest bomber of WW2. I dont care how much you love an aircraft. I love the B-17 but the B-29 has it hands down. I love the Lancaster but the B-29 has it hands down. The B-29 could carry a Tallboy if needed but as FBJ says why did it need to? 

Good comeback there FBJ!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2006)

That was a great comeback, but mine would have been this (which isn't as a good)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

Nice pics, I have never seen those. Thanks.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 3, 2006)

I hadn't seen those either. Cool pics.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2006)

You have to look at this way. If the B-29 can carry jet and rocket powered aircraft under it, what can it not do when compared to other WW2 bombers?

Easy...

Nothing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

Thanks guys, I knew I seen somewhere a B-29 with a Grand Slam, thanks for the pic D!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2006)

plan_D said:


> That was a great comeback, but mine would have been this (which isn't as a good)



You have any more details on that? I wonder if it was being tested with the bombs in case it was going to be deployed the the ETO.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jul 3, 2006)

SpitfireKing flies again!


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jul 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't eve begin bringing in sims to make these types of comparisons - no PC sim will ever get you remotely close to the really flying, let alone determining aircraft performance.
> 
> The Zero was an over-rated propaganda machine, although deadly in the right hands it never achieved more than a 2 to 1 kill ratio over inferior Western aircraft and that was only for a very short period!!!



Secret weapons over normandy, I think, did a pretty good job. you can add mods to your planes and the second fighter you get is a Spitfire. You also get a german bomber and begin with a Hurricane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

SpitfireKing said:


> Secret weapons over normandy, I think, did a pretty good job. you can add mods to your planes and the second fighter you get is a Spitfire. You also get a german bomber and begin with a Hurricane.


I fly planes - REAL PLANES and a few jets - the only thing you're getting out of any home flight sim is a quick seated thrill and a very loose insight of what it was like in the cockpit of a WW2 aircraft, and it is a "Very Loose Insight."


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2006)

I have plenty of information on the testing syscom. There were three B-29s modified to carry the Tall Boy (M-109) or Grand Slam (M-110) bombs either in the bomb bay or on under-wing racks. 

The M-109 testing finished with the final date as June 11th, 1945 and modified B-29s were ordered to be ready as soon as possible for use against precise targets in Japan. Reports show that these machines, with the bombs, would have been ready to bomb Japan by September, 1945.


----------



## 361st_Xabre (Jul 3, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't eve begin bringing in sims to make these types of comparisons - no PC sim will ever get you remotely close to the really flying, let alone determining aircraft performance.
> 
> The Zero was an over-rated propaganda machine, although deadly in the right hands it never achieved more than a 2 to 1 kill ratio over inferior Western aircraft and that was only for a very short period!!!




Hey there FlyboyJ,
Firstly I thought I was very clear in my post, I was NOT trying to compare the flight sim (IL2 Forgotten Battles) to real world flight characteristics.
Secondly although Ive been told by some reliable sources that the flight simm does its best to "simulate" the real world flight characteristics of the fighters in question.
It is obvious that you did not understand fully my post..in that if the Japanese designers would have kept pace with the rest of the warring parties and there constant upgrades to their perspective front line fighters IE: Spitfire,BF 109, etc. the A6m series would have been a deadly foe in any theater, You are correct in that it was relatively slow,and yes it was an inferior fighter just in its non armored configuration. but it ,even at its slow speed could out turn anything comming against it. and yes in the right hands the A6M was certain death to any rookie pilot that got in its way . For example the only way that the U.S. fighters could beat the A6M in the early 40's was to Sassy Sandwich the Zero.in other words split off and wait to see which fighter the zero would go after ,and god help the poor Bas***rd in front of the Zero. Hopefully the wingman got behind the A6M and took him out immediately
This was the only way to beat the Zero until the F6F, P38 and P51 came into play buy this time the IJN had lost there best pilots and the Zero was far surpassed in performance because of the paralysis of the Japanese bureaucracy.

X


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 3, 2006)

> This was the only way to beat the Zero until the F6F, P38 and P51 came into play


The P-40 had excellent results against the Zero, as well as several other "inferior" airplanes...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2006)

The _Zero_ was too slow to achieve an considerable success against the great fighters of World War II. At slow speeds the Zero would out-turn almost anything, but the opposing pilots would keep the speed high and rid the Zero of all it's advantages.
When the A6M2 first made a kill on September 13th, 1940, the British had the already been building the Spitfire Mk.II with Merlin XII engines for some months. And the Luftwaffe introduced the Bf-109F-1 the month after the Zero made it's kill. 

The speed of the Bf-109F-1 was around 390 MPH. The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 - 325 MPH depending on the source. The Spitfire Mk.II had a top speed of 354 MPH. Both of these aircraft were in combat, and only just developed in 1940, yet they both were faster, heavier armed, superior armoured and more agile at higher speeds. As the speed of planes increased, the agility at low speeds became less important. The Zero would not be able to pull any tight turn above 275 MPH, what if the Spitfire pilot comes flying in at 300 - 320 MPH and keeps himself there? He's still got 30 MPH on his speed, but he's out-turning the Zero because the Zero can't turn at that speed. It can't roll well, dive well or climb as fast as the Spitfire Mk.II.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

361st_Xabre said:


> Hey there FlyboyJ,
> Firstly I thought I was very clear in my post, I was NOT trying to compare the flight sim (IL2 Forgotten Battles) to real world flight characteristics.
> Secondly although Ive been told by some reliable sources that the flight simm does its best to "simulate" the real world flight characteristics of the fighters in question.


 It gives a very limited understanding, especially in just basic flying...





361st_Xabre said:


> For example the only way that the U.S. fighters could beat the A6M in the early 40's was to Sassy Sandwich the Zero.in other words split off and wait to see which fighter the zero would go after ,and god help the poor Bas***rd in front of the Zero. Hopefully the wingman got behind the A6M and took him out immediately


The P-40 and even the P-39 could out maneuver the Zero at high speed, the P-40 could out roll it at all speeds - these advantages were fully exploited by the late summer of 1942. If you explore some old threads I have data that shows by the fall of 1942 the USAAF had better than a 1.5 to 1 kill ration over the Zero and Oscar, contradicting a lot of second rate books about this subject.


----------



## 361st_Xabre (Jul 3, 2006)

Again I submit if the the Jap designers would have kept up with the latest and greatest in aircraft design the inferior Zero would have been formidable against the fighters you had mentioned.

X
Oh by the way the fastest single engine fighter of the ETO was the Yak 9U it was SCARY FAST flat out.

X


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2006)

361st_Xabre said:


> Oh by the way the fastest single engine fighter of the ETO was the Yak 9U it was SCARY FAST flat out.


At what altitude? There are many german aircraft that were way faster than the YAK-9U


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2006)

SpitfireKing said:


> Secret weapons over normandy, I think, did a pretty good job. you can add mods to your planes and the second fighter you get is a Spitfire. You also get a german bomber and begin with a Hurricane.



Okay first of all dont get me started on sims.

As with FBJ and many others here who actually fly, we can tell you that a sim does not compare to really flying an aircraft.

2nd Secret Weapons over Normany is not even close. It is fake and a game for kids and nothing more. I have the game and have played it. It compares nothing to flying real aircraft. It is like the Mario Brothers of flight sims.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2006)

361st_Xabre said:


> X
> Oh by the way the fastest single engine fighter of the ETO was the Yak 9U it was SCARY FAST flat out.
> 
> X




Oh really are you really sure about that?

Lets see:

Yak-9U: 417 mph (672 km/h)

Germany
Ta-152: 459 mph (731 km/h)
Fw-190A-4: 417 mph (672 km/h)
Fw-190D: 440 mph (704 km/h)
Bf-109K-4: 452 mph (727 km/h)
He-100: 416 mph (670 km/h)
Me-209: 469 mph (755 km/h)
Bv-155: 429 mph (683 km/h)
Me-309: 455 mph (733 km/h)

USA
P-47N: 433 mph (697 km/h)
P-51D: 437 mph (703 km/h)
F4U: 417 mph (671 km/h)

England
Hawker Tempest MK. II: 440 mph (704 km/h)
Hawker Fury: 440 mph (704 km/h)
Spitfire XIV: 448 mph (721 km/h)

Japan
Ki.87: 433 mph (687 km/h)
J7W1: 466 mph (742 km/h)
Ki.64: 429 mph (683 km/h)


----------



## evangilder (Jul 4, 2006)

To make the zero faster would not have done much for it, except give it the ability to get out of trouble faster. The biggest problem was the barn-door sized ailerons. It was a great advantage at slow speeds because they bite into the air and give you the tight turn radius. At high-speed, you are doomed though because there is no way any human has the strength to move them. Would power assist have helped? Maybe, we will never know if the structure would have been able to hold up to those kinds of forces. 

Adding armor and self sealing fuel tanks to the Zero would have added weight, which will effect range, speed, manueverability, etc. Plus, depending on where the weight is distributed, you could take an airplane that is fairly stable and make it a student killer.

The Japanese were not stupid. They had other designs after the Zero that used some of the lessons learned. Late war Japanese fighters were actually pretty good, just too little, too late. Once cut off from the raw materials, they were well on the path to defeat. Let's not make the Zero out to be the end-all and be-all. It was a fighter that was good when it first came out, and faced a number of inferior fighters in China doing well. But it received a reputation of mythic proportions that proved in many ways to be unfounded.


----------



## 361st_Xabre (Jul 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh really are you really sure about that?
> 
> Lets see:
> 
> ...



To both FlyboyJ and AdlerIstgalandet
I stand humbly corrected!.......HUGE LOL!


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2006)

A couple other points to ponder about the Zero.

It had an extremely long range for a aircraft carrier fighter. That complicated a lot of planning for the USN in the first year of the war as theoretically, the Zero (and the Val and Kate) could be in range long before the US could launch theres.

The Zero's also had terrible radio's which made control of their formations difficult to control once the fight started. And it didnt help them one bit for CAP over the carriers (one reason they lost at Midway).

Many allied pilots mistook the Oscar with the Zero.

Generally, in 1942, Oscars were found only in the CBI. Zero's were in the Solomons and New Guinie. In early 1943, as the IJAAF moved into New Guinie, the Oscar began to appear, and the Zero was relegated strictly to the Solomons and a couple of locations on New Guinie where the IJN still had airfields.

Now if there was one inadvertant advantage that the Zero and Oscar both had, it was very easy to fly. Almost like a souped up combat trainer. Once the war began and the Japanese began to accelerate their training programs, there was a reasonable probability that a student pilot could transition successfully to these airplanes and not get killed learning to fly it. Of course all that meant was they would be skilled trainee's when shot down by allied pilots.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I have plenty of information on the testing syscom. There were three B-29s modified to carry the Tall Boy (M-109) or Grand Slam (M-110) bombs either in the bomb bay or on under-wing racks.
> 
> The M-109 testing finished with the final date as June 11th, 1945 and modified B-29s were ordered to be ready as soon as possible for use against precise targets in Japan. Reports show that these machines, with the bombs, would have been ready to bomb Japan by September, 1945.



I know that after the 20th AF finished burning down the Japanese cities, they were going to go after the rail infrastructure. I wonder if this was to be used for that. Or maybe try to hit bunker complex's in hills impeding hte invading ground forces.


----------



## 361st_Xabre (Jul 4, 2006)

evangilder said:


> To make the zero faster would not have done much for it, except give it the ability to get out of trouble faster. The biggest problem was the barn-door sized ailerons. It was a great advantage at slow speeds because they bite into the air and give you the tight turn radius. At high-speed, you are doomed though because there is no way any human has the strength to move them. Would power assist have helped? Maybe, we will never know if the structure would have been able to hold up to those kinds of forces.
> 
> Adding armor and self sealing fuel tanks to the Zero would have added weight, which will effect range, speed, manueverability, etc. Plus, depending on where the weight is distributed, you could take an airplane that is fairly stable and make it a student killer.
> 
> The Japanese were not stupid. They had other designs after the Zero that used some of the lessons learned. Late war Japanese fighters were actually pretty good, just too little, too late. Once cut off from the raw materials, they were well on the path to defeat. Let's not make the Zero out to be the end-all and be-all. It was a fighter that was good when it first came out, and faced a number of inferior fighters in China doing well. But it received a reputation of mythic proportions that proved in many ways to be unfounded.




Thankyou for the clarification,
I still believe that given the opportunity to improve the A6M IE. Giving the plane power assist on control surfaces , a beefier motor ,and even the minimum of armor would have improved the Zero emensly, but of course it was never done and therefore faired terribly,and as history has shown Japan paid dearly in materials, planes and most of all good pilots.

X


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2006)

361st_Xabre said:


> Thankyou for the clarification,
> I still believe that given the opportunity to improve the A6M IE. Giving the plane power assist on control surfaces , a beefier motor ,and even the minimum of armor would have improved the Zero emensly, but of course it was never done and therefore faired terribly,and as history has shown Japan paid dearly in materials, planes and most of all good pilots.
> 
> X



"Power assist on the control surfaces" That's done 2 ways - hydraulic boost or by counter weights - both need room and structure to support them = WEIGHT. Assuming you could do that to the Zero you would have to reinforce the rest of the aircraft because with boosted control surfaces you run the risk of over-stressing the aircraft, so with that comes more weight. Later model Zero's did have armor and self sealing tanks, minimal by US standards but they were attempting to improve the design. The later model A6M5c had a 1,200 HP engine and couldn't even break 350 mph and the Japanese even attempted to put a 1,500 hp engine in the A6M8c in which only a handful were built and still offered little improvement.

Bottom line the design was obsolete by 1942 and you couldn't do many more "bolt on" improvements - by that time the IJN and the JAAF were already looking at new designs and it was the smart thing to do - you could only pump so much "soup" into superman, in this case the Zero....


----------



## 361st_Xabre (Jul 4, 2006)

Good points....I guess the Zero was a good idea at the time. I think the Designers did not realize that what was comming on the horizon. Far faster,better armored,better manuverable fighters...they were over whelmed at the advancements made by the allies who were really pissed at them.. but Yamamoto said it best" We can win for the first six monthes but im afraid we have awoken a sleeping giant" and they did, and from that point forward it was a losing battle for the Nips. Now that i think about it even if the JIAAF would have had the fastest fighter I dont think it would have made much of a differance. the U.S. war machine was playing to win and they did with a vengance that is unsurpassed in history.

X


----------



## Col. Douglas King (Jul 5, 2006)

Definitley: Lockheed P-38L Lightning !


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 6, 2006)

This site has changed........

It used to be the FW!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 6, 2006)

Best fighter, I would agree the FW, best overall aircraft, I still say C-47.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

I too still think the best fighter was the Fw-190D.


----------



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

mosquitoman said:


> Nooooo! There's two of them!



so it would seem


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

And I agree Eric that the C-47 was the best aircraft overall of WW2.


----------



## EAF51_Bear (Jul 15, 2006)

What about FIAT G.55?

(OK, you know, I m Italian... )


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2006)

EAF51_Bear said:


> What about FIAT G.55?
> 
> (OK, you know, I m Italian... )


Great airplane amico , but all round, the C-47 - you guys even flew them after the war...


----------



## EAF51_Bear (Jul 16, 2006)

Yes, I agree (What I was mentioning above was only a kind of nationalistic air-lover behauviour  )

The Dakota was (do we have to say "IS"?) a weird plane, probably the plane most used plane all around the world in her different versions: C-47 as well as DC-3 (civil airliner).



> Quite possbily the most successful aircraft ever developed, approximately 13,000 C-47 variants were produced including more than 2,000 built in foreign countries under license. At one time the DC-3 or C-47 was in service in more than 40 countries.
> SOURCE: AC-47
> 
> It was also manufactured by Soviets (LI-2) and Japanese (L-2D)



I also remember some version operating in Vietnam as flying gunship (AC-47 "Spooky")



> During the Vietnam War, C-47s served as designed and also as the first gunship-the AC-47 or "Puff the Magic Dragon," which was fitted with 7.62 mm miniguns. These weapons fired up to 6,000 rounds per minute and the aircraft carried 54,000 rounds. The AC-119 and the AC-130 succeeded the AC-47 in the gunship role with their greater capacity and better design for gunship use. As it pioneered in cargo and passenger transport, the C-47 also pioneered in development of the gunship, which became so important to special operations.
> SOURCE: Douglas Skytrain Transport - Military and Civilian Aircraft



The following are the only pic I was able to find about the C-47 gunship version. Does anyone have any picture of that?


----------



## evangilder (Jul 16, 2006)

I have 2 from my archive. I apologize for the quality of these images, they were on a camera that I had a long time ago that was maybe 1 megapixel. The third shot is I believe either from the site for John Levitow or from the USAF Museum archive. I can't recall.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

EAF51_Bear said:


> What about FIAT G.55?
> 
> (OK, you know, I m Italian... )



Good decent aircraft but when compared to other fighters such as the Spitfire, Bf-109, P-51, P-38, and P-47 it was a step behind.

Im still with the C-47 being the best aircraft as well guys.


----------



## freetech (Jul 31, 2006)

Greatest aircraft of WWII has to be the P51 Mustang, IMHO. Although that's like asking what is the best car or what is the best dessert. Each plane had its assigned task(s) and many of them carried out their missions with great success, some did not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2006)

freetech said:


> Greatest aircraft of WWII has to be the P51 Mustang, IMHO. Although that's like asking what is the best car or what is the best dessert. Each plane had its assigned task(s) and many of them carried out their missions with great success, some did not.


And the C-47 performed its task(s) and them some. Without it there would of been many P-51s grounded in England. The P-51 has its place in history as one of the best, it's contribution to the daylight bombing of Germany is evident, but it was also obvious that there were many other fighters way better than it.

This is an "outside the box" poll. The C-47 was in every theater of the war, supporting all branches of the US military as well as our allies it transported troops continually with unsurpassed reliability and was still doing it 50 years later, that's way it is recognized as the greatest aircraft of WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

Agreed FBJ. The P-51 was good at what it did in escorting bombers but was overated as well.

C-47 all the way!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

Basically there is more to WW2 aviation than fighters and more than just fighters and bombers that won the war.


----------



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

good God i thought he was gonna be annother newbie coming on claiming the mustang was the best plane ever simply because it's all they've ever heard of, but he just about managed to salvage it at the end............


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

The Mustang was within the top five best planes of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

Ill agree because of what it was able to accomplish in numbers, but by itself it was just an average really good fighter.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

Not just in numbers. Reading about 2nd TAF has brought the light how effective the Mustang was on the armed-recon sorties they flew over France and Germany in 1943 and 1944. The Mustang I and IAs were causing considerable trouble for the German units, as they would often appear all over the place unexpected. Often catching single or couples of planes completely unawares. These would go out in pairs generally flying at extreme low level.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> good God i thought he was gonna be annother newbie coming on claiming the mustang was the best plane ever simply because it's all they've ever heard of, but he just about managed to salvage it at the end............


YEP!!!


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 2, 2006)

Yep I agree 100% with the C-47, but I'm also gonna give a very honourable mention to the PBY.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2006)

1. C-47 'Skytrain' - It carried the war effort of so many countries in it's hold. 
2. Spitfire - Was on the front from day one until the end, on every front.
3. Fw-190 - Held its own against any Allied fighter.
4. P-51 'Mustang' - Carried the bombing campaign on it's shoulders.
5. B-29 'Superfortress' - The 'Nuke' bomber, need I say more?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 2, 2006)

To me, what separates the Spitfire between the Mustang was, that though the Spitfire was an amazing plane, the pilots needed to be trained hard on how to use it properly,usually pilots flew the Hurricanes before they ever caught a glimpse of a Spit, whereas with the Mustang, you could put a rookie pilot in the cockpit of a p-51 and buddy could go into a dogfight and do some serious damage, that is a big deal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2006)

I like pDs list up there. The only thing I would change would be swapping the Fw-190 over the Spitfire and only for the reason that I believe they were pretty much equal and well I am biased to the Fw-190! 

Great list there pD.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 3, 2006)

Yep it is a good list, I would leave it as it is because I am the opposite of you Adler being biased towards the Spitfire...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 3, 2006)

But since the Mustang could fly to where the fighting was, that gives it a leg up on either the Spit or the -190


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 3, 2006)

plan_D said:


> 1. C-47 'Skytrain' - It carried the war effort of so many countries in it's hold.
> 2. Spitfire - Was on the front from day one until the end, on every front.
> 3. Fw-190 - Held its own against any Allied fighter.
> 4. P-51 'Mustang' - Carried the bombing campaign on it's shoulders.
> 5. B-29 'Superfortress' - The 'Nuke' bomber, need I say more?




Yup I don't think I would change that list.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 4, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> But since the Mustang could fly to where the fighting was, that gives it a leg up on either the Spit or the -190


But wasn't the Mustang taking the fight to the -190?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2006)

While the Spitfire was keeping the British isles safe, the P51 was flying to the far reaches of the Reich, chasing down the -190.

And as has been proven by many people arguing over thir favorite birds, none of them were magnitudes better than the others. They all had similar charchteristics. The one excpetion being range. Thats where the Mustang excelled.

Range has a quality all of its own.

Id look at the greatest planes of the Pacific war. 
1: C47 (to an even bigger degree than in Europe, the C47 was vital)
2: P38
3: F4U
4: B25
5: F6F


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2006)

I dont give a **** about range right now syscom because once the Fw-190 and the P-51D were in combat over the Reich range was no longer a factor. The Fw-190 would have more fuel than the P-51 at that point anyhow.

The Fw-190 was overall a better fighter than the P-51, so basically its just your opinion and I disagree with your opinion. Live with your opinion and let others live with theres.

One on one the P-51 was not better than the Fw-190.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2006)

With the piloting being equal, the P51 would rack even with the -190.

Range is everything.

If you cant fly to the party, you aint going to dance.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 4, 2006)

with regards to the no.5 plane couldn't it be argued that it was the weapon not the means of deliverly that was great?


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2006)

With or without equal pilots, the P-51D was no equal to the Fw 190D-9 in single combat...

I cant believe anyone with an informed opinion would even think otherwise, but then again, we are talking about syscom here...


----------



## evangilder (Aug 4, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> with regards to the no.5 plane couldn't it be argued that it was the weapon not the means of deliverly that was great?


I don't think so. The B-29 was the most advanced bomber of the time on the allied side. Pressurized cockpit, remote gun sites that were computerized, the radios, navigational aids and sighting systems were all well beyond anything else and it could carry a tremendous load for a long distance.

The 2 that dropped the atomic bombs were 2 of 15 special variants, "Silverplate" specifically made for the drops.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> With the piloting being equal, the P51 would rack even with the -190.
> 
> Range is everything.
> 
> If you cant fly to the party, you aint going to dance.



We are not talking about going to you so called dance, we are talking about dancing.

In "dancing" there were many aircraft superior to the P-51D including the Spitfire and Fw-190D-9.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> With or without equal pilots, the P-51D was no equal to the Fw 190D-9 in single combat...
> 
> I cant believe anyone with an informed opinion would even think otherwise, but then again, we are talking about syscom here...



P51's shot down -190's all the time. And vice versa.

If the -190 was superior to the P51, then you would see lots of P51 losses and not as many -190 losses. 

They were matched fairly evenly


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> P51's shot down -190's all the time. And vice versa.
> 
> If the -190 was superior to the P51, then you would see lots of P51 losses and not as many -190 losses.
> 
> They were matched fairly evenly


Statistically they might of been evenly matched and a lot of that has to do with pilot skill and numbers (The USAAF was totally outnumbering the Luftwaffe). If you look at both aircraft from their technical characteristics the FW-190D was a superior aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2006)

You might be right. I was thinking more of the "A" models vs the P51.

I was looking at some of the 8th AF mission stats for middle 1944 and didnt see any lopsided losses incurred by the P51 groups.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2006)

Oh my god did he just agree with us on something? I am proud of you syscom!


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 4, 2006)

yes, i did. 

Flyboy does explain things in a calm and dignified way


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> yes, i did.
> 
> Flyboy does explain things in a calm and dignified way



gee....thanks!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 4, 2006)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> yes, i did.
> 
> Flyboy does explain things in a calm and dignified way



So does just about everyone else here at first. We just get frustrated with you easier....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 8, 2006)

evangilder said:


> But wasn't the Mustang taking the fight to the -190?



It was taking the fight to the Luftwaffe


----------



## evangilder (Aug 9, 2006)

And thus the 190.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2006)

Theres more to fighting a war than the fighters and the bombers.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 9, 2006)




----------



## Le Stuka (Aug 31, 2006)

> Basically there is more to WW2 aviation than fighters and more than just fighters and bombers that won the war.


Definetley the DH Tiger Moth. Was flown by many before, during and after the war and was a classic!

Le Stuka


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2006)

Le Stuka said:


> Definetley the DH Tiger Moth. Was flown by many before, during and after the war and was a classic!
> 
> Le Stuka


Worthy of mention but did not have the impact of the C-47....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2006)

Le Stuka said:


> Definetley the DH Tiger Moth. Was flown by many before, during and after the war and was a classic!
> 
> Le Stuka





Oh boy...

Lets see. 

1. She was a 2 seat trainer? Yeah trainers are worthy of mentioning because they teach the fighter pilots how to fly but there were better trainers our there than the biplane Tiger Moth such as the T-6 Texan.

2. Fully loaded she topped out at 1825 lb which means she could not carry the weight that the cargo aircraft could such as the C-47. She could not carry a decent amount of bombs if any so that takes her out of the running as a bomber aircraft and she could not tangle with any of the Luftwaffe fighters so that takes her out of the running there.

3. Top speed was 109 mph at 1,000 ft (175 km/h at 300 m), not very impressive even for a trainer. Range was 302 mi (486 km) which was not a lot, and had a cieling of only 13,600ft which is not where most of the air war was being fought over Europe.

She was a good primary trainer but had no impact on the war and there for was not the *Greatest Aircraft of World War 2*.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 1, 2006)

To be fair with trainers, the Tiger Moth was a good primary trainer. So was the Stearman. The Texan was an advanced trainer, so I wouldn't necessarily put the primary and advanced trainers quite in the same grouping. Different speeds and performances. There were several great trainers out there, but I still go with the C-47 as the greatest aircraft of WWII. I would go a step further and say it is one of the greatest aircraft of all time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2006)

evangilder said:


> To be fair with trainers, the Tiger Moth was a good primary trainer. So was the Stearman. The Texan was an advanced trainer, so I wouldn't necessarily put the primary and advanced trainers quite in the same grouping. Different speeds and performances. There were several great trainers out there, but I still go with the C-47 as the greatest aircraft of WWII. I would go a step further and say it is one of the greatest aircraft of all time.


HEY! I'm opening up a thread - "The Best Trainer of WW2!!!!"


----------



## evangilder (Sep 1, 2006)

Good idea Joe. I don't know about many of the other nations trainers, so this could be a good way to learn more about other trainers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2006)

I just would not catagory at Trainer as the Greatest Aircraft of WW2.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 3, 2006)

I agree.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2006)

yep


----------



## glennasher (Jun 16, 2007)

Gotta love a C-47, just like you would a Hercules today. They also delivered airborne troops, which is where I know them best (82nd Abn. Div.'78-'81). Not exactly in the context you're referring to, but significant, nonetheless.


----------



## Cota1992 (Jun 21, 2007)

I have to agree with the C-47.
I used to live next to a CBI vet who worked in supply and he told me about how they some times had order up special fights when mission critical avation parts were running short or out. Fighters and bombers (Not to mention ground forces) can't fight with out parts and medical supplies and short falls can't always be made up with ground or sea transport in the time needed.
Add in the use as a paratrooper transport and glidr tug and you have a pretty unbeatable aircraft.

I would have to disagree with not counting trainers... they are up there on my personal list of the greatest. With out that massive fleet of trainers those bombers and fighters and transports are nothing more than paper wieghts.
Just my two cents, which don't add up to much 
Art


----------



## <simon> (Aug 8, 2008)

Interesting that the Junkers JU-88 didn't even make it on the list.

Wasn't that supposed to be one of the 5 greatest aircraft of WW2?
(Decided by historians- not me!) 

The Spitfire, Mosquito, Mustang and pretty sure the BF-109 were the others.

Just quoting a book I read, open for debate.


----------



## SHOOTER (Apr 13, 2012)

plan_D said:


> That was a great comeback, but mine would have been this (which isn't as a good)



Just a quick point! The above picture shows the B-50 with the american 42,000 pound, IIRC, T-12 prototype bomb! Not Grand Slam! Do some google foo!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2012)

SHOOTER said:


> Do some google foo!





Dont insult other members, *foo*! Especially when you are quoting a post that was made 4 years ago!


----------



## PJay (Apr 17, 2012)

Actually it's Google Fu. As in Kung Fu.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Apr 18, 2012)

PJay said:


> Actually it's Google Fu. As in Kung Fu.


Now, that's funny!
Pjay, you should check out the "Provide a caption" thread!


----------

