Hey come on guy's
it should be okay to voice an opinion in this forum right?
Voicing an opinion is everyones right. To start throwing out an attitude with comments such as "Who do you think you are" is not the right thing to do in this forum. And that is for anyone to anyone.
Wespe said:
The below text says, that all three Ju 90 possesed the Trapo (Transport-klappe)-(Ramp)
Da alle drei Flugzeuge (Ju 90) über die so genannte Trapoklappe verfügten, konnten sie über diese auch kleinere Kraftfahrzeuge bis zum Schützenpanzer Sd.Kfz.222 oder 250 verladen und transportieren.
Somewhere maybe in the Junkers book there is a nice picture showing a Sd.Kfz.250 moving into the Ju 90.
On the inserted picture one can see this ramp quite clearly on a Ju 290.
Yeah I found that as well, when I went back to my books.
Wespe said:
The missions it could fulfill are known to you just as well as to me, so I do not understand why you are demanding proof on something that you also know.
Because you said it was the most versatile aircraft, which it was not. The most versatile aircraft can perform the most roles. The Me-262 could at best perform 4 to 5 roles.
Aircraft such as the Ju-88, Mossie and B-25 could perform the same roles as the Me-262 plus a lot more, therefore were more versatile. Do you understand what I am saying now?
Wespe said:
The fact that it changed prop aviation in general to jet aviation is off larger historic proportions to me then the undisputed logistic contributions of a C-47.
I disagree because this discussion is about the best aircraft of
"WW2" not
"post WW2". Therefore it should be based off what the aircraft did in the immediate conflict. The C-47 had a larger historic role in that sense. I am not saying the C-47 was the best aircraft per say but it was the best aircraft in WW2 based off what it accomplished.
Wespe said:
And before the showing of the Me-262 or 163, especially the Americans where clinging on to piston planes, otherwise how would you explain 3 years of research ending up in a useless performance of a P 59.
The P-59 led to the P-80 which was a decent jet fighter.
Besides the US and the rest of allies were not into building super weapons in that sense. They just wanted to win the war. How do you do that? You build stuff that is easy to build, easy to maintain. You mass produce it numbers that overwelm the enemy and you defeat them with those numbers.
Why put a big fraction of research and development into stuff that is going to take time to perfect when you can build lots of P-51s, B-17s, B-24s, Spitfires, Lancasters, P-47s and get the war over with.
Wespe said:
That it did not contribute to a "change in history" is obvious nevertheless the above attributes make it to the best plane in WWII. If this opinion is not shared by others, well I wont die, cry or whatever.
No it did not change history, but lessons learned from it led to the P-80.
If you really want to be techincal the Me-262 did not change history either. The invention of the jet engine did, and as I stated above there were other German designs that influenced post war jet technology more than the Me-262.