TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
Nope
The plane didn't shoot anything down, the pilot did. Pilot qualifies, plane, no.
Best looking WW2 fighter (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter markstuk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The plane didn't shoot anything down, the pilot did. Pilot qualifies, plane, no.
He used the airplane to bring his weapon to bear. That would be like disqualifying a Bolton-Paul Defiant. It was still aerial combat.
(I'm kinda' having fun here. Don't take it personally.)
I'll post some pixs when the real "Rosie" gets finished up this spring and added to the collection. As for "best looking" do I really have to say it...?...Hi...I'm back....
Ok, this one might seem like a stretch (especially following that Bugatti. WOW!)...but its my sig and I gotta give it props.
To me, it "cute" (like how a VW Beetle used to be considered "cute") and it does have a certain Elegance of Function going on.....
...and so.....
....I give you.....
THE L-4 GRASSHOPPER
View attachment 571532
View attachment 571533
View attachment 571534
View attachment 571535
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
ummm no, bad comparison. The Defiant mounted 4 machineguns, not the pilot. The B-P Defiant was for the air force that plans on running away from the enemy.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Sorry guys, I forgot... 
...its best looking FIGHTER. ](/forum/images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
Yes, there are accounts of the L4 holding its own in a "dogfight", but you're right, its not a "fighter"....although that is an interesting notion.....What if the war (in the air) were fought with light sport planes? L4 vs. Fiesler-Storch vs. Ki-76 vs. Po-2....etc......
Anyway, L4 post deleted.
...carry on...
With a user name like Spitlead... I'm going to have to go with... wait for it... the Spitfire -most of the earlier Marks up to the X!V. Followed in a close second with the P-51D. Most of the German airplanes I find to be a bit clunky with lots of bits hanging out, except for the FW190 and Me262. I do like the Yak 9 (which looks kind of Spitfire-esk.
Admiral Beez
Major
IMO, it is one of the best looking DB 600 series powered fighters.I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the real best looking plane of WW2
View attachment 571383
IMO the Japanese made the best looking fighters. The Ki-61 is just so sleek
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 880
- Feb 16, 2013
Better than getting shot in the back, like all those cowardly fighters with forward facing guns
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
Well ... the right thing to do is make it so the wings can flip over and fire backwards!
And you get leading edge flaps for free!
Well they certainly do share a similar appearance. Maybe more like distant cousins. Fairly thick fuselage, tiny landing gear track so it looks a bit ungainly on the ground. As a side note, I have read that Kurt Tank who designed the FW190 apparently took some design queues from the Hughes H-1 racer he was so impressed with it.
Just strap two 7.9mm guns on top of the L4 engine cowling, synchronize with the propeller, and away you go! Would make for some interesting dogfights....
Yes, there are accounts of the L4 holding its own in a "dogfight", but you're right, its not a "fighter"....although that is an interesting notion.....What if the war (in the air) were fought with light sport planes? L4 vs. Fiesler-Storch vs. Ki-76 vs. Po-2....etc......
Anyway, L4 post deleted.
...carry on...
But - where is Merlin?
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
I was thinking send along an "observer" with a couple of tommy guns.
That'll put a little Storch in yer Fieseler!
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Yes, that is one of the first things I noticed about the J-22.
The track isn't quite as narrow as that picture makes it look, but it is not as wide as the 190's.
The J-22 was an attempt at an idigenous fighter design during a time when Sweden thought it was prudent to update its airforce.
Seems it had good performance for an early war fighter, but was quickly outclassed.
Fortunately, Sweden didn't play a huge part in the war.
I did a quick check of Wiki on both planes, here's how their respective specs compare......
Focke-Wulf Fw 190
Data from Fw 190 A8,[62][63][citation needed]
General characteristics
- Crew: 1
- Length: 8.95 m (29 ft 4 in)
- Wingspan: 10.506 m (34 ft 6 in)
- Height: 3.15 m (10 ft 4 in)
- Wing area: 18.3 m2 (197 sq ft)
- Airfoil: root: NACA 23015.3; tip: NACA 23009[64]
- Empty weight: 3,200 kg (7,055 lb)
- Gross weight: 4,417 kg (9,738 lb)
- Max takeoff weight: 4,900 kg (10,803 lb)
- Fuel capacity: 639 L
- Powerplant: 1 × BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp; 1,250 kW) and up to 1,980 PS (1,953 hp; 1,456 kW) at 1.65 ata for up to 10 minutes of emergency power ("erhöhter Notleistung")[65][66]
- Propellers: 3-bladed constant-speed propeller
Performance
- Maximum speed: 652 km/h (405 mph, 352 kn) at 5,919 m (19,420 ft)
- Range: 900 km (560 mi, 490 nmi)
- Combat range: 400–450 km (250–280 mi, 220–240 nmi)
- Ferry range: 900 km (560 mi, 490 nmi) ~1800-2000 km with droptank.
- Service ceiling: 10,350 m (33,960 ft)
- Rate of climb: 15 m/s (3,000 ft/min)
- Wing loading: 241 kg/m2 (49 lb/sq ft)
- Power/mass: 0.29–0.33 kW/kg (0.18–0.20 hp/lb)
FFVS J 22
Data from F.F.V.S. J22 Fighter Aircraft[3]
General characteristics
- Crew: 1
- Length: 7.8 m (25 ft 7 in)
- Wingspan: 10 m (32 ft 10 in)
- Height: 3.6 m (11 ft 10 in)
- Wing area: 16 m2 (170 sq ft)
- Aspect ratio: 6.25
- Airfoil: root: NACA 23015; tip: NACA 0012-64 mod.
- Empty weight: 2,020 kg (4,453 lb)
- Gross weight: 2,835 kg (6,250 lb)
- Powerplant: 1 × SFA STWC3-G or Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SC3-G Twin Wasp 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engine, 780 kW (1,050 hp) at 2700 rpm
- Propellers: 3-bladed SFA / Hamilton Standard VP-2M, 3.1 m (10 ft 2 in) diameter constant-speed propeller
Performance
- Maximum speed: 575 km/h (357 mph, 310 kn) at combat power at 3,500 m (11,483 ft)
- Cruise speed: 500 km/h (310 mph, 270 kn) at 75% power at 4,000 m (13,123 ft)
- Approach speed: 170–180 km/h (110–110 mph; 92–97 kn)
- Landing speed: 140 km/h (87 mph; 76 kn)
- Stall speed: 137 km/h (85 mph, 74 kn) landing configuration
- Never exceed speed: 650 km/h (400 mph, 350 kn) IAS
- Range: 1,270 km (790 mi, 690 nmi)
- Service ceiling: 9,300 m (30,500 ft)
- Absolute ceiling: 13,000 m (42,651 ft)
- g limits: +6g (+10g ultimate) at 2,835 kg (6,250 lb)
- Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,090 ft/min) max
- Wing loading: 177.2 kg/m2 (36.3 lb/sq ft)
- Power/mass: 0.276 kW/kg (0.168 hp/lb)
Armament
- Guns: 4x 13.2 mm (0.520 in) akan m/39A with 250 rpg (FN Herstal M.1939 machine guns license built by LM Ericsson) J 22-2 / J 22B
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the real best looking plane of WW2
View attachment 571383
IMO the Japanese made the best looking fighters. The Ki-61 is just so sleek
The Ki-61 was based on the Heinkel He-100, of which numerous prototypes were build but it did not go into production. The He-100 did set a world speed record however, in 1938. Several He-100Ds were sold to Japan, where they influenced the design of the Kawasaki Ki-61 II Hein, or Tony.
LOL... "fugly". True enough. The D520 cockpit position looks similar to the old Gee Bee racers from the early 30's, placed way back on the fuselage.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
D520 always reminds me of the Curtiss YP-37....
buffnut453
Captain
Do you have a source for that? The Ki61 was based on a specification released towards the end of 1939 for the IJAAF. The 3 He100s only arrived in Japan the following May and it was the IJN that was most interested in it for use as a land-based interceptor. Hitachi won a contract to build He100s for the Navy but it was never executed.
Apart from the licence-built engine, the Ki61 appears to have been an entirely Japanese design.
There are several sources on the internet of which I cannot validate but appear believable. Here is one however which gives some good detail. Japanese Nakajima Ki-63 Haitaka (Heinkel He 100) by comradeloganov on DeviantArt
The above source states the "design work on the Ki-61 did not begin until December 1940", after Japan had already received the 3 He 100s. One has to admit the two aircraft are uncannily similar and the noted website even indicates the Ki 63 was an Army "variant" of the He 100. And, the coincidence that the Japanese acquired 3 of the He100s makes it even more likely that some of the Ki 61 design was influenced by the Heinkel. Further, as you note, Hitachi (Nakajima) won a contract to build the aircraft which would require the transfer of technical data and all engineering drawings. Also, the Ki 61 used a licensed version of the Daimler-Benz DB 601, the same engine used by the He 100. A recent source (Zero! by Martin Caidin and Jiro Horikoshi) very strongly indicates the Japanese aircraft industry just did not have the bandwidth to crank out new designs like the U.S., Britain or Germany. One could ask, why would Japan 'reinvent the wheel' and design a whole new airplane around the DB 601 given the fact their aerospace capacity was so stretched?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
