5 Favourite Planes

[GregP]

The Spitfire Mk. XIV was still the best, and the best dogfighter of the war.
They didn't produce the K-4 in large numbers, in any case the Merlin engined HA-1112 was the best 109..but we won't go into that, it didn't see service and it was Hispano built...for Spain...

There is NO fighter that is the best at everything.

The Spitfire XIV was powerful, climbed well, and turned well. It was NOT a long-range aircraft. Combat range was 460 miles, meaning it was not a London-to-Berlin airplane.

It also was not the best at absorbing punishment, no Spitfire was. It was NOT a good ground-attack airplane.

But, if you were going to do one-on-one fighter combat, the Spitfire XIV was an excellent choice. So was a Tempest. So was an Fw 190D / Ta 152 (not many Ta152s). So was a P-51H (not many in WWII). The Bf 109s weren't bad at all if you stayed slow, but got less good as you got faster. The F4U, particularly the F4U-4 (not too many on WWII) was as fast as any and could turn and fight with any of the above.

So, when you say, "it was the best," what aspect were you talking about? Can't be all aspects, and fighter versus fighter combat was not all that frequent. After daylight bombing was established and the Allies were at it, bomber escort was mostly of what a fighter was used for. 1000-bomber raids escorted by 600 - 700 fighters was the order of the day for most of 1944, and the home-defence Spitfire XIVs didn't see much one-on-one combat. It was usually in support of an attack mission of some sort. And if the Germans were diving from 42,000 feet into bombers at 25,000 feet, they were NOT easy to catch, rendering the Spitfire XIV's dogfighting prowess largely unfulfilled.

So, what exactly do you mean by "best?" Airframe performance? Armament? Speed? Dive? Range? Turn ability? Rate of climb? No airplane had it all, and there were quite a few that could match and beat a Spitfire XIV in many factors. About the only one it hardly ever got beaten in was rate of climb which, while important, wasn't nearly as important as other aspects, depending on the mission. As an interceptor, it was likely the best or near the top. But at other missions, maybe it was less than the best.

 

[GrauGeist]

Just going to put this out there: if the Spitfire was the best dogfighter of the war, how then, did the Germans manage to shoot them down?

There really isn't a "best" when trying to define any one type of aircraft over another.

 

[Shortround6]

Just going to put this out there: if the Spitfire was the best dogfighter of the war, how then, did the Germans manage to shoot them down?

nothing works 100% of the time, nothing fails 100% of the time. What separates best from worst is the difference.

 

[SaparotRob]

Profound

 

[Sabrejet]

So. Favourite plane...

 

[Snautzer01]

was NOT a good ground-attack airplane

Tell that to all that were shot to blubber in trains cars and bikes trycicles rollerscates.

Fast, could outturn light flak and have a change.

I met a person long ago who was in a train in Holland. Train was defended with some light Flak .
Attacked by Spitfires.
Flyboys killed the loco and came back to finish.
The could not have known it was mostly civilians.
The dead were stacked up at the back near the exit. Apperantly trying to get out Almost nobody got out. It was not the only train shot up like that. By far.

Spits were quite capable in ground attack. Period.

 

[GregP]

Favorite interceptor: Spitfire XIV.
Favorite escort: P-51D.
Favorite ground attack: P-47/ Fw190F.
Favorite dogfighter: Yak-9U (VK-105).
Favorite recon: Mosquito.
Favorite attack bomber: Tu-2.
Favorite medium bomber: A-26 Invader.
Favorite heavy bomber: Lancaster.
There was only one super-heavy bomber: B-29.

 

[SaparotRob]

I think I have already answered this thread a while back. I wonder how close I am to what I originally posted.
1) B-17F
2) B-17B
3) Brewster Buffalo
4) A6M
5) PBY
*If the B-17s count as one, then add the F4F.
Honorable Mentions:
F4F*
Boeing 299
Boeing 314
Boeing 464
Boeing 727-200
Amiot 143
EDIT
Wait a minute. This list is impossible! I plum forgot the SBD! Mr. Heineman's A4 Skyhawk too! This list is too hard.

 

[Snautzer01]

Amiot 143

Put the booz away. Next you will see goblins on pink hippos.

 

[Shortround6]

nothing works 100% of the time, nothing fails 100% of the time. What separates best from worst is the difference.

I kind of cribbed this from a comment about American baseball.

162 games in the Season, every team wins 60, every team looses 60. difference between first and last is the 42 games in-between.

This year the #1 team won 101 games at .623%
The #15th team won 50 games at .309%

So it is pretty true. Please note that the BEST team was only twice as good as the worst. And that the best team this year lost 61 games.

 

[SaparotRob]

Put the booz away. Next you will see goblins on pink hippos.

I have never seen a B-29…..

….painted pink.

 

[Snautzer01]

Fixed it.

 

[Frog]

Flight 19 TBM n° 1
Flight 19 TBM n° 2
Flight 19 TBM n° 3
Flight 19 TBM n° 4
Flight 19 TBM n° 5

 

[GregP]

Tell that to all that were shot to blubber in trains cars and bikes trycicles rollerscates.

Fast, could outturn light flak and have a change.

I met a person long ago who was in a train in Holland. Train was defended with some light Flak .
Attacked by Spitfires.
Flyboys killed the loco and came back to finish.
The could not have known it was mostly civilians.
The dead were stacked up at the back near the exit. Apperantly trying to get out Almost nobody got out. It was not the only train shot up like that. By far.

Spits were quite capable in ground attack. Period.

Capable does not mean "the best" at it. Never said it wasn't capable.

Any airplane with armament is capable. But you'd hardly describe a training airplane with two 30-cal MG the "best" at it.

Likewise, the Spitfire could certainly hit ground targets. But it could not take a lot punishment before catastrophic damage occurred versus more suitable ground attackers. A P-47 was worlds tougher than a Spitfire but would fall short of a Spitfire as an interceptor and/or a dogfighter. But, in the war, it shot down a lot of enemy aircraft and proved it was capable. Still, if you were going up to dogfight and had a choice (Not likely in real life, you basically flew what you were assigned to fly), you'd likely pick a Spitfire, if you could, over a P-47.

Not trying to start any thing here, but saying the Spitfire was the best ground attack airplane doesn't seem even CLOSE to reasonable.

I'd call it a mid-pack ground attacker. Decent armament, but short-ranged and not rugged versus ground fire. Against non-defending targets, like you describe above, it was quite good versus other gun-only attackers. Against well-defended targets with heavy flak capability it was was not a good choice.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Capable does not mean "the best" at it. Never said it wasn't capable.

Any airplane with armament is capable. But you'd hardly describe a training airplane with two 30-cal MG the "best" at it.

Likewise, the Spitfire could certainly hit ground targets. But it could not take a lot punishment before catastrophic damage occurred versus more suitable ground attackers. A P-47 was worlds tougher than a Spitfire but would fall short of a Spitfire as an interceptor and/or a dogfighter. But, in the war, it shot down a lot of enemy aircraft and proved it was capable. Still, if you were going up to dogfight and had a choice (Not likely in real life, you basically flew what you were assigned to fly), you'd likely pick a Spitfire, if you could, over a P-47.

Not trying to start any thing here, but saying the Spitfire was the best ground attack airplane doesn't seem even CLOSE to reasonable.

I'd call it a mid-pack ground attacker. Decent armament, but short-ranged and not rugged versus ground fire. Against non-defending targets, like you describe above, it was quite good versus other gun-only attackers. Against well-defended targets with heavy flak capability it was was not a good choice.

There seems to be a progression. As more capable models were fielded, the older models were relegated to ground attack.

 

[Snautzer01]

There seems to be a progression. As more capable models were fielded, the older models were relegated to ground attack.

No not quite. Only if it had a profit. P-47 did. It could carry a Tyson punch and some big ole bombs to top it off and had a decent range annnnnddd a lot of good pilots.
Its the plane you sent to get shit blown up and get a lot of death and destruction.

The Spitfire imo was used more as a somewhat freely running bird.
Hit hit and run... suprise mf .. hit again.
As the p-51 did when they got bored.
There is no best as the plane with its capabilities was selected just for its capabilities and therefore the best target for it. Not always but mostly.
War is a planners game. From getting ore or oil to a machine in the sky. Not heroics.
If you need those you lost.

 

[GrauGeist]

I may have mentioned this before, but a friend of mine, who was with the 82nd Airborn at Normandy, said that the P-51 and Spitfire were impressive ground attackers.
However, he said the Typhoon and P-47 were absolutely terrifying.

 

[Barrett]

I couldn't hope to limit myself to five favorite planes from history.
Favorites from my logbooks:

Naval Aircraft Factory N3N-3
Douglas SBD-5 (restored A-24B)
T-34B (armed)
Bell UH-1 (armed)
Pitts Special

 

[GregP]

Interesting list, Barrett, particularly the armed T-34B. I thought that was the T-34C-1. Neat airplanes. Unless you meant the Soviet tank! ha ha.

I have a friend who own an N3N at Chino and he loves it. We have a flying SBD-5 Dauntless at the Planes of Fame. Both are really neat airplanes.
We have a static UH-1 on the airport and a couple of T-34s that fly about. Never saw the T-34C demonstrate firepower, but it can haul some things that are scary.

I want to ride in a Pitts sometime.

Like I said, interesting list.

Cheers.

 

[MiTasol]

Just going to put this out there: if the Spitfire was the best dogfighter of the war, how then, did the Germans manage to shoot them down?

There really isn't a "best" when trying to define any one type of aircraft over another.

and why could the P-40 roll faster and almost anything take more punishment than the Spitfire.

The title question is open to all sorts of interpretations

To fly?

• 40 hp Piper Cub - you cant go anywhere but you sure can have a lot of Fun.
• 450 hp Stearman - again Fun with a capital F
• TBM - enjoyable except for that brain smashing top centre canopy rail
• AT-6 - no special reason, just like it.
• nothing else came close to those four

To work on?

• Mitsubishi Mu-2 (except main gear rigging)
• P-40
• T-6
• Martin B-26
• TBF/M

To look at?

• dH Hornet
• Arado 234
• P-39
• A6M
• Westland Whirlwind