Best Fighter

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Things listed on paper always tell a 1 sided story.... Stats are great and I love em.... But they arent everything....

And for the record, I have NEVER met someone who flew in the same airspace as those D9's and felt confident they were unbeatable.... The 4 or 5 guys i talked to who battled the Dora thought the plane superior in performance to their 51D's.....

But that is only 4-5 out of 1000???? But it's 100% of the pilots i talked to.....
Oh. Name one?
Are u implying that we are just making this up for the hell of it????
First of all, I aint no liar and dont appreciate someone behind a computer screen accusing me of being one.....
Secondly, U DONT KNOW EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
Thirdly, opinions are like assholes....... Everybody's got one.....
And forthly, Colonel Henry Brown of the 355th is one of the men I've spoken to.....
 

"have stated the the late model 190s were something they dreaded seeing."

A statement that could easily apply to any plane that posed a serious threat, even if inferior to the one the pilot is flying.

I've met Hannible Lee and others of the Tuskegee Airmen at Mongomery Field Airshows. I've managed to ask a few questions about the P-51 of Chuck Yeager, Henry Brown, Bruce Carr, William Whisner, amoung many others. Always I have asked questions like "was the FW, especially the long-nosed FW, better than the P-51?" and always the answer has been "no". I spoke to "Bud" Anderson in an online interview where questions like this were asked and he indicated none of the German props worried them, but they had some reticence when they first encountered the Me262.

Because out of all the WWII pilots I've met I've never yet met one who spoke of anything like what you say, yes, I would like to know who made this comment. It is totally out of keeping with virtually every pilot I've had the opportunity to speak with.

So, you volunteer at an air-museum. Well, while I was a kid my Dad was a navy pilot. Over the years he had many buddies he flew with in the Korean war and their buddies over for dinner parties and such, including amoung others Pappy Boyington. When I was very young, we spent 18 months in Europe while my dad trained NATO pilots in the use of air-to-air missiles, and I can remember WWII pilot stories told over after dinner drinks (but of course I was not allowed to ask questions or participate, only to listen). My Dad also spent a year assigned to the USAAF, when I was a little older, and I met quite a few WWII fighter pilots and was able to ask some questions and listen to stories at various parties and family activities. I was in fact, considered by my Dad, to be rather annoying sometimes for always wanting to hear WWII fighter stories, but the truth is a lot of those guys loved to be asked. Often, when my Dad and Mom were hosting a party (which was pretty often), I'd drag out my models and ask them if they ever shot down one of these.

Anyway, I've had the opportunity to speak to a lot of pilots over the years, and never have I heard any of them speak of dreading encountering any German plane in WWII, except the Me262 which they didn't know what to make of. For the most part, they were much more afraid of ground fire than the Luftwaffe'.

=S=

Lunatic
 
How you ask a question or approach a WWII vet can make a big difference in the answer you get to questions. I don't always directly speak to them and often sit quietly back and listen while 2 vets talk about the old days or a vet who is talking to someone else.

If I just came up to someone I had never met or spoke to before that I knew was a WWII vet, that would not be the first question out of my mouth. To be honest, they may have given the answer to you so they wouldn't have to take any more questions. From someone they don't know, if they answered that something else might be better, they could be accused of being unpatriotic, a liar, etc. It's a safe answer.

I see that your vast experiences with aviators is SOOO much better than my volunteer work in a WWII aviation museum and things that I have heard with my own ears as well while there. You see, I don't always get their names, as I don't always engage them directly, nor do I often get told a name of a person that I am giving a tour to. Someone starts telling their story, I am not going to be rude to stop them and ask their name, fighter group, proof of what they did. I just LISTEN. I never asked them what their opinion of what is better, but I have heard it many times that the Mustang was a great plane, but it wasn't always the best in a fight. I heard others chatting about the late Doras and what they thought. I didn't interrupt them, I LISTENED. It is amazing how much you can pick up without ever having to utter a single question.

I treat all of our visitors the same, regardless of who they are or what they have or have not done. I have finished tours and after the gentlemen left, one of the other guys will ask me "Do you know who that was?" I don;t always know. Well, I have given tours to a number of known veterans like David Hackworth, and one of the crewmen from the Tokyo raid, who's name eludes me at the moment. He passed away a couple of years ago. When I saw his picture in the paper, I remembered him from a tour. Some tell stories, some do not. If they want to share, I LISTEN. Otherwise, I give the tour like I normally would.
 

And often I would just listen at dinner parties. I would ask a question and then they'd all start talking and telling stories. Remember, I was a kid and I got to ask a question or two, maybe, and that was it before my Dad would let me know that was it, or sometimes even send me into the other room or to bed. Alcohol helped a lot too. I can still remember Pappy Boyington (I think it was Boyington - I was maybe 6 or 7 at the time) putting out his cigar on my moms best tablecloth, he was not able to hit the ash tray! I can distinctly remember a discussion between pilots that turned into an argument about who were the more dangerous foes - the Germans or the Japanese, and the USAAF pilots who'd fought both said.... suprise.... THE JAPANESE!

All I'm saying is that your comments are not in line with anything I've ever heard. I don't think most pilots thought that way. They were selected for agressiveness, and trained to be even more aggressive. Every one of them thought they were the best pilot in the sky. And, in general, by the time the P-51 came into the war, they thought they had the best plane in the sky too.

I'm not saying the P-51 was better than the Dora9, I'm saying it was competitive and that each had advantages and disadvantages. However, more often than not, given the way the two planes match up, the P-51 should start in a position to control the fight and use its advantages and avoid those of the Dora9, and that is a huge factor in who wins a fight.

=S=

Lunatic
 
PS: It seems we have both spoken with Col. Henry Brown. Are you saying he said he dreaded the late model Dora? I sure don't remember him making that kind of comment when I heard him talking about flying the P-51!

=S=

Lunatic
 
i dont think u can say what fighter is the best one,.. they are all different, and to make an objective approach, u should ask someone who've flew them all
 
I find this last part of this thread interesting....the Dora against all these US aces.

Fact is in most probability that 9/10th's of the US aces did not come up against the Dora in combat and the comparision is superfulous. ID was probably not correct but that is not surprising as when the Me 163 komet was sighted nearly all US fighter groups started to reprot them in the skies.


the Dora against British Spits and Tempests is another story.

let me remind you gents that only JG 2 and most of JG 26 were outfitted with the type. II./JG 301 in the winter-spring of 45 and much of it was on the ost front. Stab./JG 3 flew on the ost front as well as Stab./JG 4 with Dora's on the ost front. The Würger staffel of JV 44 probably had one instance with P-47's.

The Dora was anexcellent craft in the hands of a skilled pilot but so was a P-51D or K. The Dora like the Ta 152 and the Me 262 could not prove its;ef as it was overwhelmed with Allied numbers, and created to late in the war. A huge what-if.

Gruß
 
Plan_D:

You really are a cyber-bully aren´t you?

Instead of resorting to your low budget insulting remarks, you should try to prove your points.


RG_Lunatic:

With all due respect for some of the veterans you mentioned (Chuck Yeager, Bud Anderson, etc.) I would certainly take some of their arguments with all due reserves. Why?

These USAAF veterans will of course speak about the Luftwaffe in terms very very similar, if not identical, to those Kozhedub and other soviet aces would use. A very normal and unsurprising thing; a standard procedure for any victor of any war.

Chuck Yeager, for instance, appears to speak gladly and fluently on the war sometimes apparently losing the ground.

That their answer to your question "was the Dora better than the P-51" was no, tells very little about the issue.

Yeager should really slow down sometimes for he himself got shot down in combat with German interceptors. In fact, mr. Yeager is as lucky to be alive as many of the top German aces who saw service virtually throughout the entire war.

This means mr Yeager was effectively surpassed in combat and went down. Very lucky to be alive.

Even a soviet lady shot down more planes than he did. Furthermore, Yeager´s total bag was in many cases, a half an hour job for a big number of German experten.

My point is, those famous veterans of the USAAF over Europe are experts at pointing the weak spots of the enemy craft they faced, but curiously tell nothing regarding the weak spots of the aircraft they flew.
 

Thank you someone sees where I am coming from. RG_Lunatic seems to think that everyone but the United States was in the Stone Age. RG please dont take me wrong I respect your patriotism and all. I am a patriot for the United States and Germany. I love both countries and would die for either one. I wear a US flag on my shoulder right now and prepared to lay down my life for it, but I am sorry you make it sound like the Germans and everyone else could not have developed better weapons and engines and such because they were not smart or skilled eneogh and frankly you are dead wrong. Get off the high horse please. And yes there are people that are getting to angry about this topic, it is just a discussion. I know I was guilty of this earlier in the posting with RG_Lunatic but lets try and be more friendlier, unless you can tell it to there face and not safe behind a computer.

plan_D said:
They wouldn't have out-done Britain on jet engines. We had the most powerful engine in the world, in the Nene. And we were making more and more powerful engines.

If the war had dragged on the Germans would have developed better jet engines also, dont take me wrong the Brits were very capable aswell and would have kept right up there also.


You are absolutely correct, you can not base your comparison of two aircraft based off of charts and specs. I am sorry RG_Lunatic but you know what sometimes the specs dont tell the truth. Just like evenglider's C-130 an example of this is the British Puma and the Blackhawk. On paper the Puma is better and will outfly a Blackhawk anyday under any conditions. However I personally have proved this wrong. In Kosovo as a friendly wager between a British Puma crew and my crew we outflew, outclimbed, and out turned a Puma (dont ask me why 2 helicopters would need to outturn eachother). The face between Prestina and Camp Bondsteel to see who could fly faster, the Puma accelorated faster but we cought up with it and got there 3 minutes ahead of it. But on paper this was not possible, so I guess I am making this up because paper is always correct, correct RG_Lunatic?

RG_Lunatic said:
Oh. Name one? I've spoken to lots of WWII aces (and non-aces) over the years, and what I remember them consistantly saying is that there was no German prop fighter that they did not feel the P-51 was better than.

Again man you did not fight the Dora so give it up. I know it was not a US fighter but it was a hell of a fighter and the P-51 was not gods gift to aviation.


Ofcourse they said that. Damn you are naive my friend. If you ask any pilot what they think the best aircraft is they say it is the one that they fly. It is a thing of pride. Whenever someone asks me I tell the best is the Blackhawk because I love my aircraft. Is the Blackhawk the best, more then likely no. You ask a Dora pilot which aircraft he thinks is the best out of pride and love of his aircraft he will say Dora. The same goes for Hurricane and Spitfire pilots. You go tell a Spitfire pilot that your beloved P-51 is better then his Spit and he will spit on you. Get over it please. And yes whats up with these questions of "Who", "What sources" and so what? What do you think we are all liars and stuff. How do we know that you actually have spoken to these pilots, you could be some 8 year old kid sitting behind the computer telling us that you are who you are. You even want to argue with Erich about is soarces and he has researched stuff like this more then any of us and talked with more pilots then you could have ever dreamed of.

RG_Lunatic said:
For the most part, they were much more afraid of ground fire than the Luftwaffe'.

Of couse you would say this because the Luftwaffe was German. But this is easy for you to say since you never flew against the Luftwaffe. Have you ever flown over hostile lands? I surely have and you know what I take nothing for granted everything is dangerous and everything wants to kill you. But ofcourse when I am sitting back at the local Kneipe in Germany I am going to tell people I was more scared of the Iraqi birds then someone trying to kill me.

RG_Lunatic said:
And, in general, by the time the P-51 came into the war, they thought they had the best plane in the sky too.

Again please read my post I made earlier. Ofcourse they thought they had the best plane, everyone thought they did and you know what that is still the same today.

RG_Lunatic said:
Are you saying he said he dreaded the late model Dora? I sure don't remember him making that kind of comment when I heard him talking about flying the P-51!

And again. I guess evenglider is a liar because he did not hear the same thing you did, and again that is what every pilot says about there aircraft.

And just off topic this is coming from the news lately. Airbus came out with the new Airbus A-380 yesterday. What do you think about that RG_Lunatic because it is not Boeing and not a US built aircraft? You probably think it is years behind anything that the US has built. Anyways I have said eneough on this, I need to stop before I go against what I said up top and get angry.
 
Der Adler:

I wholeheartedly agree with all your points.

It is surprising you can find lots of webpages, books and magazine articles when it is affirmed: "The P-51 wholly outclassed the Bf109".

I will always oppose such argument by saying: "You should have asked Erich Hartmann who shot down 7 P-51s flying a Bf109 of the late G series and was never based in the Reich or in the west".

Is Yeager so confident he had nothing to worry about German interceptors? Then, why was he duly surpassed in combat getting shot down? It is either his P-51 was no superior at all, or that he perhaps was not the ultimate fighter pilot of the war.

Der Adler, just like when one is very pissed off and opens his mouth, such state of anger will certainly lead him to say stupid, groundless or offensive things, victory plays kind of a similar effect. Victory has this effect of drunkness on victors, many times having them saying unaccurate or untrue things.

I ve read a good deal of specifications on fighters of WWII. The Bf109G and K, globally speaking, were on equal terms to any fighter fielded by the allies. The same applies exactly to the Fw190 versions.

I do not care how much allied literature devoted to defame the Bf109 has been printed so far; the battlefield facts, even in the final defeat, prove the 109s were in no way inferior to any of the toys of the USAAF.

It is simple, victors want the whole cake in their fridge but most of the times it is not possible.
 
I dont not want to be taken wrong by anyone I am not saying that the allied technology was not great (it certainly was and in many things was better) and I am not saying that the P-51 was not a good aircraft. It certainly was one of the best but so were the Spitfire, the Me-109G and K (yes they did start to loose on maneuvarability but at high altitudes they were just as good and where were the bombers at high altitudes), the Fw-190A, Fw-190D, Ta-152. Just because it is not made in the US does not make it inferior and the Europeans were not uncapable of technological advances as a certain person likes to believe.
 
I can assure you, Adler, that the British would have kept ahead of the Germans in jet engine design. They kept ahead of the world for many decades after the war. The Germans were at best achieving 3000 lbs thrust, they were thinking too small. The Nene stayed the most powerful for years after the war, and not only was it powerful it was reliable, durable and economic.

Udet, bully!?!

You find a more powerful engine from the War than the Rolls Royce Nene engine, I'll give you a cookie.


http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmeteor.html

There you go, there's your proof!
 
Plan not to spoil your fun but have you develed in any of the later spring 1945 high tech Luftwaffe projects concerning futuristic engine/design developments ?

Again I point out that 10:1 many of the US fighter pilots listed probably never ran up against a Dora in combat, and their adversaries were flying the A-8 and A-9 and gving a good show of themselves
 
I will not deny the fact that they would stay ahead but I do believe the Germans would have made more powerful ones then they had. As I said before it is a cat and mouse game it goes back and forth, back and forth, each one topping the other.
 
the designs by the Allies cannot even reach the proprotions of what the Luftwaffe techs were accomplishing during 1945. Case in point as the materials and prototypes were so far advanced that the "secrets" have been hidden for over 45 years. why is the old cave-factories at Oberammergau guarded to this day ? sure there are a barracks there but why there ?..........
 
It never made it off of the drawing table but it shows that they were making one.

Jumo 012, Junkers Turbojet engine, developing about 6000lb thrust, planned for the Ju 287. Never left the drawing board
http://www.ww2guide.com/jetrock.shtml#jengines

The Germans were thinking in more powerful engines way more then you think or the allies would not have taken the scientists working on them.

 
The Germans were deffinatly thinking years ahead of the allies in there later designs. There are some great books that you can get through amazon and they are titled Seret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. There are several volumes of it each dedicated to its own type of aircraft such as bombers, ground attack, fighter and so forth. Very good reading. Some of the early US designs were based off of them including the Sabre, F-105, A-10 (that is a shocker isn't it).
 
This will show you how advanced the Messerschmitt P.1011 was:


Here is some photos of the Oberamergau site that Erich is talking about and some photos of the P.1011 at the Oberamergau and again flying with US colors after the war.
 

Attachments

  • p1100-31.jpg
    28.1 KB · Views: 788
  • p1100-25.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 788
  • p1100-22.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 796
  • p1100-3.jpg
    10.9 KB · Views: 794
  • p1100-28.jpg
    13 KB · Views: 786
6000 lbs thrust isn't much, when you consider the British soon developed engines more powerful than the Nene. I hate to burst your bubble but the British have always been the leaders in Jet engine technology. 1946 the Rolls Royce Avon 109 was set at 7,500 lb. Then came the Avon 206 11,000 lb thrust in 1951. Along with them the 15, 680 lb thrust Rolls Royce Avon 302 on the Lightning, 1947 design.

You see, the British throughout the 40s, 50s and 60s were well beyond the rest of the world in jet technology. Only in the past two decades has America caught up, even then the JSF engine is a joint-venture between Rolls Royce and General Electric. Most 747s fly with Rolls Royce engines...the best engines are British, and they always have been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread