5 Favourite Planes

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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!
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • p63-main.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 917
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.
 
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................
 
P-38 used it. And so does every modern fighter. It did allow for much better pilot vision on take-offs and landings.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
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................
Click to expand...

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 ?
 
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.
 
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...............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

About those Japanese carrier planes that outranged the American planes.
Replies
18
Views
4K
Thumpalumpacus
Only U.S. Born Pilots Fly U.S. Planes?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Frog
F
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A
Japanese wooden planes
Replies
1
Views
1K
GrauGeist
S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
3K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register