Best Fighter

[Anonymous]

Hot Space: I hope everyone understands that the swearing was meant tongue-in-cheek. If anyone has taken offense, I do apologize. Somebody suggested I should register. Someone else hinted there may be something sinister in my relative anonymity. I mean, it's all handles here, right? Maybe I haven't registered because nobody as yet has invited me. Let's see. . .my favorite aircraft of all time is the DC-3, aka. the C-47. Maybe that would be a good handle.
Back on the subject of fighter planes, an advantage of arming with machine guns is that the pilot's marksmanship doesn't need to be as near perfect as it needs to be with the 9mm cannon. In the First World War, at Jutland, the German navy were better marksmen, but the British had a faster rate of fire. It's an example of two different cultures reflected in distinctly different approaches to the problem. Does anyone know, were any of the American fighters equipped with cannon? The P-38 had one in its nose, didn't it? And then the P-47 with those rockets. Now there was a real hog, that P-47. Zoom! Marksmanship? Yup. You bet. Amerikanische ingenuity?

 

[C-47]

Hello everyone. I only feel slightly less anonymous than I did ten minutes ago, but hey, we're all friends here, right? I mean, while I don't feel a need for phasers and photon torpedoes, I never go anywhere without my shields. I read and accept the terms, I only hope there are no serious hackers lurking. (That having been said, I guess I'll find out.) Anyway, I'm glad to be part of the crowd. Having grown up during the Cold War and Vietnam, I was inundated with military conditioning, so I have a predisposition deeply imbedded in my psyche to admire the elegant machines celebrated by this site, and to regard as beautiful machines engineered for lethal purposes. There's a certain ambiguity, or is it ambivalence in the handle I chose: C-47. While I love it as the DC-3, its incarnation as the C-47 wants this recognition. While it is true that there is no peaceful use for a cannon, the DC-3/C-47 demonstrates that there is versatility sometimes, like men who become warriors, then surviving the conflict, return to what they preserved. Anyway, glad to join you. Greetings from America!

 

[Viper]

im suprised that there is such a small number of members here....this site really rocks

 

[cheddar cheese]

sure does, its a great site 8) and what a great post from C-47, welcome 8)

 

[C-47]

Space, Viper, Cheese--thanks guys. What are some of the sights to see here? Are there other threads ongoing? How about a topic on favorite movies and television series? Twelve O'Clock High has always been a favorite of mine. There was a series we saw here on PBS, from the BBC called Piece of Cake, a dramatic account of a Spitfire squadron in 1940. Great aerial footage with vintage aircraft.

 

[cheddar cheese]

well, a lot of the threads started off as sensible discusions on a particular thing, such as the mustang, naval fighters etc, but most of them - ok then all of them turned into an argument over which was better out of the b-17 and the lancaster. that seems to have calmed down now though and its back to normal (just). if you ever want information about something, just ask and someone will be more than happy to help 8)

 

[C-47]

Sorry, Cheese. That anonymous guest who made the teasing remark about the Lancaster being such a homely thing was me, I'm afraid. Seemed to me everyone had fun with it. That's why I did it; just to stir things up a little. I was only stating the obvious, after all.
The French had some excellent fighter aircraft in the First World War. Of course, they weren't in the second great war for very long, but did they have any good fighters in 1939-40? Newports? Spads?

 

[cheddar cheese]

ill look into it 8)

 

[cheddar cheese]

right here we go.

in the late 1930's the Dewotine company started development on a modern monoplane fighter. the early prototypes showed promise but the french authorities refused the design but a year later, another prototype was built that was better than the predecessor and this was accepted, the first order was taken. in june 1940, 400 examples were ready for action. unfortunately, most of these were captured by the luftwaffe and used as training planes. however, italy, romania and bulgaria utilized them into successful fighters.

taken from www.tgplanes.com

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

hey, and welcome, i'm affraid you're probery gonna hear allot from me, much to the annoyace of everyone else, i'm the one you don't want to mention the B-17 in front of, i go a 'lil crazy

 

[C-47]

Thanks, Cheese. That French D.520 looks like a hybrid combination of the Spitfire and the Curtiss P-40. The Great Planes site has a really good picture of the D.520--the one in color of the plane on the ground, parked on the edge of the tarmac. I was disappointed to not be able to copy it. I'd like to have posted it here.
Looking at that P-40 reminded me of a pilot I flew with cross country one time, a long time ago. He had flown C-47s over "the hump" (the Himalayas) from bases in India into China. The association is with the squadron of American volunteers/mercenaries who served in China, Claire Chenault's "Flying Tigers." They flew P-40s. Anyway, I asked the guy--just out of curiosity--if he had made many parachute jumps, expecting that he would say yes, many times. He said he had once been forced to jump from a plane on fire. He said he could see no reason for jumping out a perfectly good aircraft, that it's a good way to get killed. I laughed. That is so true.

 

[C-47]

I prefer to use surnames, so Cheddar Cheese is Cheese, and Hot Space is Space. So. . .The Lancaster Kicks Ass would be--mm, I've been warned about swearing.
The in-line 12-cylinder Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that gives the Spitfire its sweet profile, and its successor the P-51, as well, looks doltish hanging under the wings of a bomber. The radial engine, on the other hand, mounted on the leading edge of the wings of the B-25 and the B-17 really looks good. That's what a bomber ought to look like. The B-29 is the supreme example of the form. Balanced like a fine Swiss watch. Whenever I watch the film "The Dambusters," I think those poor guys, having to fly in an ugly-a** plane like that. (Sorry, Space, but I believe in calling spayed spayed.) No wonder they flew their missions at night, they didn't want to be seen. They were too embarassed. And that tail assembly, what's up with that? If you want to see twin booms done right, take a look at the B-25.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I'll let you off that time because you made it funny (and I'm trying to cut downon the B-17 bashing), but the lancaster looked perfect thank you very much!

 

[cheddar cheese]

hehe, he has a point though lanc, the lancaster is NOT a pretty plane, but oh well, thats what you sacrifce if you want a bloody good bomber

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that why the P-108 looked good is it? (well, i get it, even if you don't)

 

[C-47]

I'm ragging what's-his-name about the Avro Lancaster's form finally, but a lot of good men served in them, and died in their service. The Lanc had painfully little armor. There was no co-pilot. The only armor installed was a plate behind the pilot's head. That takes a lot of guts. Britain's motto was "blood for treasure." Payload was given precendence above crew safety. The B-17 was meavily armored, and heavily armed. The relatively wealthy American motto was "treasure for blood." Attitribute it to a difference in politics. I mean no disprespect to the men who flew in Lancs, but you've got to admit, they are an ugly beast. The B-24 is similarly unattractive, and a lot of good crews served in them. I once saw a B-29 and a B-24 overhead in formation (the Confederate Air Force) and the sight was breathtaking. The B-29 has to be the premier aircraft of WW2.

 

[C-47]

Maybe we might have an endless single thread here that goes everywhere, and includes everything relevant to the purpose of the site, which is to celebrate the Second World War in the air? I wish more active members would join in here, and contribute articles that were more than one sentence, and a link. Come on, guys, let's get lively! Is this site worth participating in, or not? Let's hear some discussion. I have tried to raise some debate: guns versus cannon, armor plate versus payload weight, range, etc., but no one seems to be biting much. I'm gonna bug out if it don't pick up much soon, ya dig? A site has to be lively. This one is dying on its feet.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ooooooooook, if you look in many (well most really) you will more than likely see a debate between the B-17 and the lanc (lots of bitching there), and i can't post more than a single sentence normally because i only get 40 mins. on the "internaet" a day, witch, if you're fighting in many forums, that's nothing.

 

[cheddar cheese]

well i would try to take part in more arguments and things but i really dont know much at all about planes at all, im just very interested in them. and i think it is a shame that there are very little active members on the site, but i think it would just be overcrowded and confusing if the site was extremely popular. also i am sorry if the site is not what you expected it to be.

 

[bronzewhaler82]

This site rules! i've never seen one like it and i think its a fantastic oppurtunity for enthusiasts to talk about this stuff! otherwise we just bore our friends! i like the number of people on here - they are all intelligent and have something genuine to say. we don't want to many people like you say or it gets overcrowded, i like it the way it is and cheddar cheese...you know more about this stuff than you give yourself credit for