5 Favourite Planes

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i.e., spinning.............

 

[cheddar cheese]

anyway, my list has changed......again

1. P-38
2. P.108
3. Hurricane
4. FW-190 D-9
5. P-39 Airacobra

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

why the P-39??

 

[Lightning Guy]

Ok, I know 'favorite planes' isn't about which planes were good, but I don't really see any reason to be so keen on the P-39. The pilots of the 39th FS in the Pacific said they would rather have been issued trucks because they could fly higher than P-39s!

 

[cheddar cheese]

i like the idea of putting the engine in the middle

 

[Skufr]

I like the P-39. I don´t know if it would make my top five list, but it´s a pretty cool aircraft.

My top five favs :

1. Spitfire Mk.XIV ( just the sound of the Griffon engine is reason enough to place it first ).

2. B-24J Liberator ( big, bad and ugly. How can you not love it ? )

3. B-26B Marauder ( hottest bomber of WWII )

4. Bf 109G ( best looking Bf 109 )

5. He 177A-5

 

[cheddar cheese]

nice choices 8) personally i prefer the 109E and 109K though 8)

 

[Lightning Guy]

Well, if you are so hot on the engine in the middle, why not go with the P-63 King Cobra. At least it had decent performance. B-26 is a good choice, but I would have gone for a later version, the F or the G probably.

 

[cheddar cheese]

P-63? I dont think ive actually seen one of those before, ill look into it 8)

 

[Lightning Guy]

It appears to be an enlarged P-39 but actually was an almost completely new design featuring a new tail and a laminar-flow wing. Armament consisted of a high-powered 37mm M10 cannon through the propellor hub, 2 .50cals in the nose and another .50 cal in each wing. Speed was around 410mph. Almost all of them when to the Russians and I haven't seen much on their combat record but apparently the Russians loved them.

 

[cheddar cheese]

a comparison of the P-39 and the P-63 should be quite interesting 8)

 

[Lightning Guy]

P-63 would have killed the P-39. But it still lacked a turbosupercharger so it was strickly a low-altitude machine. It was supposed to be a real beast in close air support missions though.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i've never liked the idea of noseweel landing gear for a fighter, it just looks stupid, and i'd proberly always feel like i was about to tip over backwards................

 

[Lightning Guy]

P-38 used it. And so does every modern fighter. It did allow for much better pilot vision on take-offs and landings.

 

[Maestro]

i've never liked the idea of noseweel landing gear for a fighter, it just looks stupid, and i'd proberly always feel like i was about to tip over backwards................

You'got a good point Lanc. I don't like the idea of nosewheel landing gear neither. I always fear of that gear geting out but staying "unlocked" while landing, making the plane "crash" on the nose and then going upside-down. You understand what I mean ?

 

[cheddar cheese]

i think nosewheel landing gear, or "tricycle undercarraige" is a good idea.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Like I said EVERY modern combat aircraft uses it.

 

[cheddar cheese]

and if every modern combat aircraft uses it, it has to be good.

 

[plan_D]

Modern aircraft cannot use tail-draggers, if you use common sense and look where the engine is, you'd be burning the ground with the engines. It is much more stable with a Tri-cycle gear as well.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

when i said for a fighter, i meant for a WWII fighter, the main weels wouldn't be that far back and so there would be allot of wieght behind the main gear, so i'd always feel like i would go over backwards...............