Tigershark I take personal offense to your armchair pilot coment and I am pretty sure that FBJ does also. I suggest you tone it down a bit, or move on to someplace else.
Best Fighter III
- Thread starter kiwimac
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Erich
the old Sage
well let's look at his pont then if we may, he feels strongly that Soviet a/c could fly rings around Luftwaffe types.................ah no way bub.
with the advent of the Dora in 1945 it was all over for every single Soviet a/c type, proven. IV./JG 3 came up against all Soviet types and knocked them down, low level and taunted the soviets to come up and play high altitide tag, if they did they were creamed ...........
with the advent of the Dora in 1945 it was all over for every single Soviet a/c type, proven. IV./JG 3 came up against all Soviet types and knocked them down, low level and taunted the soviets to come up and play high altitide tag, if they did they were creamed ...........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Yep - I'm anxious to hear about his RAN association....
To put this in perspective:
I lived close to Edwards AFB, and even worked there for a spell. I've met many test pilots, some were real good guys, some were assh*les. I got to meet Chuck Yeager on several occasions, none of us could wear the guy's jockstrap, but his arrogance and disregard for those around him ruins the perception that many would expect of one like him. I seen him embarrass the Edwards Aero Club safety officer (who was a Major, former F-16 line pilot and a current test pilot) over a minor disagreement. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another to unilaterally browbeat someone with your experience, especial when there was no cause to be brash or arrogant.....
Erich said:
Agreed. The Bf-109G and Ks were also good eneogh to handel just about anythign that the Russians put up. He also talks about 60,000 Il-2's. What makes you think that the Il-2's shot down a lot of enemy aircraft? It was a ground attack plane not a fighter dude. Sounds to me like he has been playing to much IL-2 Sturmovik on really really easy level, and he calls us armchair pilots.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
He sounds like the guy who said the MiG-25 could out manuever the F-15!
He was a kangeroo bummer too. It's lucky we have some decent Australians on this site like Wildcat...or I'd just plain hate all Australians.
Oh...wait I do hate 'em all anyway. And the French, Americans, Italians, Cornish, English, Scottish, Germans, Belgians, Russians, Brazilians, Canadians (especially those from Nova Scotia ...
), Portugese, New Zealanders, Africans, Arabs, Asians...and even those people that no one evers sees because they live in places that are just plain not normal to live.
The three in bold automatically make me a racist. Don't bother with the rest, it's okay to hate them.
Oh...wait I do hate 'em all anyway. And the French, Americans, Italians, Cornish, English, Scottish, Germans, Belgians, Russians, Brazilians, Canadians (especially those from Nova Scotia ...
), Portugese, New Zealanders, Africans, Arabs, Asians...and even those people that no one evers sees because they live in places that are just plain not normal to live. The three in bold automatically make me a racist. Don't bother with the rest, it's okay to hate them.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Awww, ya big tease!plan_D said:Oh...wait I do hate 'em all anyway...{ }...Canadians (especially those from Nova Scotia ...
FLYBOYJ said:
Who knows maybe the same guy?
SUperflanker37
Airman
Well the MiG-25 is fast... hehe. I think I might get the chance to fly one when I'm older, that is if I can come up with the money..
As far as WWII fighters go, I'm a real fan of the IL-2 Sturmovik and the F4U Corsair.
As far as WWII fighters go, I'm a real fan of the IL-2 Sturmovik and the F4U Corsair.
SUperflanker37
Airman
Hmm.. most people I've asked said it was a fighter.. but I could easily see why it isn't one.
Nonskimmer
Captain
It was in no way shape or form a fighter. Straight attack aircraft.
SUperflanker37
Airman
Yeah.. I gotcha, definitly for attack.. but I don't think it'd be TOTALLY useless in air-to-air..
The Il-2 was in no way a fighter as pd and NS have said. It could not hold it own in a dogfight against the Bf-109's or Fw-190's. It was too heavy, too slow, and not maneuverable eneogh. The people that have told you that it was a fighter are dumb! The aircraft was a tank with wings. It was built to destroy tanks and ground targets.
Welcome to the site by the way SUperflanker37
Welcome to the site by the way SUperflanker37
SUperflanker37
Airman
Thanks, and I think I'm gonna trust you people on this, you know what your talking about. In that case I think I can brag about winning a dogfight on a simulator in the IL-2.. against a FW-190 I think.
Ofcourse you can. The sims are no where close to the real thing. Please go to the thread about flying sims. You will see what I mean by that.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
I'll just have to be a voice of dissent here and say that I feel that the Yak-3, Yak-9U and La-7 were among the finest combat aircraft produced in the Second World War, with some qualifications.
First of all, they are primarily low to medium altitude fighters. Above about 5000-6000m they were outclassed by their Allied and German opponents, with the possible exception of the Yak-9U, which remains competitive up to about 7000m. Below 3000m the Yak-3 and the La-7 are clearly superlative; they combining excellent speed, climb and some of the best manouervrability of any WW2 combat aircraft.
Secondly they were all relatively short ranged, so none of them were capable strategic fighters. The fundamental character of the Soviet air efort in WW2 was tactical; short ranged, predominantly in support of dedicated ground attack aircraft and medium bombers. So in a western front situation they are not particularly useful.
Thirdly, there were many variations in the build quality of Soviet aircraft. So some aircraft may be well behind on performance, depending on the factory complex they were produced in. However, when you look at the variations in performance for Allied fighters during official testing, this is perhaps not suprising. The A&AEE noted that a 6-7% variation in speeds were not unusual for factory fresh airframes according to their testing. I believe Curtiss also had some build quality issues during the war.
Forthly, Soviet aircraft technology was still behind in terms of basic comfort and convinences for the pilots. Soviet aircraft didn't tend to have all the bells and whistles, moderniation and automation present in German or Western Allied aircraft. Soviet aircraft tended to be relatively more uncomfortable for their pilots, with poor ducting, heating and fume extraction. Perhaps a small point, but still something that counts against them. This plauged some Allied aircraft as well though. The P-38 was notorious for is bad heating system. Typhoon pilots were forced to fly with oxygen massks on at all altitudes because of the possibility of carbon dioxide gasses escaping in to the cockpit.
Fifth, Soviet armament was excellent, but it had very limited ammo duration and was relatively light compared to that installed on Allied and Aixs fighters. Twin 20mms or 2 HMGs and a single 20mm, all nose mounted, are more than enough to threaten any fighter or light/medium bomber, which is all that Soviet fighters were likely to encounter on their front. However, they dont have the depth of fire time of US fighters. But US aircraft are very much an exception in these terms, generally hauling more weight of ammunition than fighters from any other nation during the war. RAF research showed that a fighter pilot was only likely to expend around 85 rounds of 20mm ammo on any sortie, less than half their total load out. Longer ammo duration is nice to have, but the Soviet reasoning was that extra armament and ammo was useless if a fighter couldn't get behind its opponent. Therefore they went for lighter more nimble fighters, with less firepower, than for heavier fighters with more armament (a la FW-190A, P-47, F4U).
Sixth, Soviet fighter pilot training was of highly variable quality depending o the unit and front they were serving at. Some Soviet pilots recieved 200-300 hours training before going into combat, some recieved as little as 20-30 and were expected to 'learn on the job' as it were. The general standard of German and Allied aviatiors, at least until 1944, were higher then their Soviet counterparts. After this Allied training contiued to improve, while German pilot qualit entered a steady decline.
When you look at the generally established performance of Soviet aircraft in terms of speed, turn, ceiling, climb ect you can see that the late war Soviet fighters are all highly competitive dogfigthers. Not necessarily superior, but competitive. They are, without exception, small, nimble, lightlweight interceptors capable of sucessfully taking on anything thrown against them, if the conditions or right. Below 5000m they come out well against any opponent in WW2, Allied or Axis.
First of all, they are primarily low to medium altitude fighters. Above about 5000-6000m they were outclassed by their Allied and German opponents, with the possible exception of the Yak-9U, which remains competitive up to about 7000m. Below 3000m the Yak-3 and the La-7 are clearly superlative; they combining excellent speed, climb and some of the best manouervrability of any WW2 combat aircraft.
Secondly they were all relatively short ranged, so none of them were capable strategic fighters. The fundamental character of the Soviet air efort in WW2 was tactical; short ranged, predominantly in support of dedicated ground attack aircraft and medium bombers. So in a western front situation they are not particularly useful.
Thirdly, there were many variations in the build quality of Soviet aircraft. So some aircraft may be well behind on performance, depending on the factory complex they were produced in. However, when you look at the variations in performance for Allied fighters during official testing, this is perhaps not suprising. The A&AEE noted that a 6-7% variation in speeds were not unusual for factory fresh airframes according to their testing. I believe Curtiss also had some build quality issues during the war.
Forthly, Soviet aircraft technology was still behind in terms of basic comfort and convinences for the pilots. Soviet aircraft didn't tend to have all the bells and whistles, moderniation and automation present in German or Western Allied aircraft. Soviet aircraft tended to be relatively more uncomfortable for their pilots, with poor ducting, heating and fume extraction. Perhaps a small point, but still something that counts against them. This plauged some Allied aircraft as well though. The P-38 was notorious for is bad heating system. Typhoon pilots were forced to fly with oxygen massks on at all altitudes because of the possibility of carbon dioxide gasses escaping in to the cockpit.
Fifth, Soviet armament was excellent, but it had very limited ammo duration and was relatively light compared to that installed on Allied and Aixs fighters. Twin 20mms or 2 HMGs and a single 20mm, all nose mounted, are more than enough to threaten any fighter or light/medium bomber, which is all that Soviet fighters were likely to encounter on their front. However, they dont have the depth of fire time of US fighters. But US aircraft are very much an exception in these terms, generally hauling more weight of ammunition than fighters from any other nation during the war. RAF research showed that a fighter pilot was only likely to expend around 85 rounds of 20mm ammo on any sortie, less than half their total load out. Longer ammo duration is nice to have, but the Soviet reasoning was that extra armament and ammo was useless if a fighter couldn't get behind its opponent. Therefore they went for lighter more nimble fighters, with less firepower, than for heavier fighters with more armament (a la FW-190A, P-47, F4U).
Sixth, Soviet fighter pilot training was of highly variable quality depending o the unit and front they were serving at. Some Soviet pilots recieved 200-300 hours training before going into combat, some recieved as little as 20-30 and were expected to 'learn on the job' as it were. The general standard of German and Allied aviatiors, at least until 1944, were higher then their Soviet counterparts. After this Allied training contiued to improve, while German pilot qualit entered a steady decline.
When you look at the generally established performance of Soviet aircraft in terms of speed, turn, ceiling, climb ect you can see that the late war Soviet fighters are all highly competitive dogfigthers. Not necessarily superior, but competitive. They are, without exception, small, nimble, lightlweight interceptors capable of sucessfully taking on anything thrown against them, if the conditions or right. Below 5000m they come out well against any opponent in WW2, Allied or Axis.
Yes they may have been among the finest but there were finer aircraft:
Spitfires
Bf-109G and K
Fw-190A and D
P-51D
P-47D,M and N
P-38L
Spitfires
Bf-109G and K
Fw-190A and D
P-51D
P-47D,M and N
P-38L
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
- Locked
