Erich
the old Sage
no he can't bud, I just kicked him in his own Schiest
Best World War II Aircraft? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Aggie08
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Amazing - too bad abortion can't be retro active.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
didn't realize till I read his other posts. Its 8 o'clock, do you know where your child is?
vinnye
Senior Airman
Hi guys - I've just joined the forum. A very interesting discussion .....
If I may add my 2 cents and without reading all the pages on this thread: but I have read some of the early and later pages to try to familiarie myself !
1.) Training / experience can lessen the odds and make up for inferior equipment - eg SBD V Zero.
It must also be remembered that the LW and IJAF had both been at war practising their tactics before applting them on the Allies!
2.) Morale and motivation - the Finns Czech and Poles had lots of it especially fighting for their homeland - whether before, durin or after the B of B.
3.) Some planes were simply easier or harder to fly eg stall characteristics, stick and rudder balance, the actual physical effort required to fly the plane. eg the propeller torque on the Griffon engined Spitfires and its narrow landing gear accounted for many an unfortunate green pilot - especially when used from a carrier!
4.) Tactics again as in no 1 above. The RAF suffered many avoidable losses in ETO and the Pacific - due to strict adherance to outdated tactics. When newer tactics were employed they had better success - no suprise there!
I would put the C47 up there as a plane that enabled the war to be won - but my vote would go th the Spitfire - just look at the number of modifications it went through! It also spawned the Seafire, Spiteful, Seafang and ultimately you could argue the Suermarine Attacker!
I would acknowledge the Bf109 - in all its guises and the awesome Fw190 - especially the Ta152!
The Tempest, P47 and Mosquito are also some of my favourite Warbirds.
If I may add my 2 cents and without reading all the pages on this thread: but I have read some of the early and later pages to try to familiarie myself !
1.) Training / experience can lessen the odds and make up for inferior equipment - eg SBD V Zero.
It must also be remembered that the LW and IJAF had both been at war practising their tactics before applting them on the Allies!
2.) Morale and motivation - the Finns Czech and Poles had lots of it especially fighting for their homeland - whether before, durin or after the B of B.
3.) Some planes were simply easier or harder to fly eg stall characteristics, stick and rudder balance, the actual physical effort required to fly the plane. eg the propeller torque on the Griffon engined Spitfires and its narrow landing gear accounted for many an unfortunate green pilot - especially when used from a carrier!
4.) Tactics again as in no 1 above. The RAF suffered many avoidable losses in ETO and the Pacific - due to strict adherance to outdated tactics. When newer tactics were employed they had better success - no suprise there!
I would put the C47 up there as a plane that enabled the war to be won - but my vote would go th the Spitfire - just look at the number of modifications it went through! It also spawned the Seafire, Spiteful, Seafang and ultimately you could argue the Suermarine Attacker!
I would acknowledge the Bf109 - in all its guises and the awesome Fw190 - especially the Ta152!
The Tempest, P47 and Mosquito are also some of my favourite Warbirds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Night Fighter Nut
Master Sergeant
Just out of curiousity, did anyone know that the Fw 190 A and D are being built again? Brand spanking new! It's being built again by a company called Flugwerk in Germany. I think they also have plans to build the P-51D but instead of calling it a Mustang, they will call it a Palimino. I saw some photos and videos that they published. They look sweet!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Why pick a combat plane that had a limited impact in the war but soon was put out to pasture? The best all round aircraft of WW2 was the C-47, and was probably the greatest aircraft ever built.
And Vinnie, please don't use large fonts....
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Old news - BTW an outfit in the springs is building a Mustang and putting "Scatterbrain Kid" back together as well as a P-38E
Night Fighter Nut
Master Sergeant
I agree with you on that one. That was a great airplane.
Thanks by the way. I didn't know if it was known about the Fw 190's or not. I should have known it would be old news for this crowd.
Thanks by the way. I didn't know if it was known about the Fw 190's or not. I should have known it would be old news for this crowd.
I actually got to see one of them fly back in September near Stuttgart, Germany.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/pe...d-timer-airshow-2009-sept-5-2009-a-20551.html
vinnye
Senior Airman
FLYBOYJ ; My apologies for using a larger font size - not shouting - just a little easier for me to read!
I chose the Spitfire because of its inspirational looks for the time it was developed and the performance that it gave throughout its career. In its earliest guises it was a capable fighter - even though it would have benefited from 0.50 cal rather than 0.303 machine guns. It also frequently had the gund set for too long a range - which was corrected by senior pilots later on.
It proved itself to be an airframe that was very versatile and able to be modified effectively whenver the need arose.
It fulfilled a number of roles - very well in most cases!
It with the Hurricane enabled Britain to stay in the war and not be invaded. A fairly important fact!
I am not and never have been a member of the Armed Forces - so can not talk from direct experience - only what I have read / seen / heard. So my apologies for any mistakes / errors!
I do acknowledge the courage and commitment of the Armed Forces and the role that they have played and still play in keepeing us free and (relatively) safe. Without their bravery and sacrifice - we would not enjoy the freedoms that we often take for granted!
Again I acknowledge the role played by the Dakota in the logistics required to keep in combat.
But if the fighters had not done their job in enabling the transports to do their jod - relatively un-molested then they would have failed - great aircraft or not!
Once again it is for this reason that I voted for the Spitfire - it performed well from the get go - until the end of the war. It was successful in most theatres in which it saw service - taking into account poor tactics and inexperienced pilots. Once modifications were made to make the AC suitable for the conditions - or more MKs deployed to the non ETO's - the AC did OK.
The Spitfire also lead to naval versions and one could argue (a bit tentaively!) that it also played a role in the Supermarine Attacker - a jet engined version!
Not bad for an old crate!
I chose the Spitfire because of its inspirational looks for the time it was developed and the performance that it gave throughout its career. In its earliest guises it was a capable fighter - even though it would have benefited from 0.50 cal rather than 0.303 machine guns. It also frequently had the gund set for too long a range - which was corrected by senior pilots later on.
It proved itself to be an airframe that was very versatile and able to be modified effectively whenver the need arose.
It fulfilled a number of roles - very well in most cases!
It with the Hurricane enabled Britain to stay in the war and not be invaded. A fairly important fact!
I am not and never have been a member of the Armed Forces - so can not talk from direct experience - only what I have read / seen / heard. So my apologies for any mistakes / errors!
I do acknowledge the courage and commitment of the Armed Forces and the role that they have played and still play in keepeing us free and (relatively) safe. Without their bravery and sacrifice - we would not enjoy the freedoms that we often take for granted!
Again I acknowledge the role played by the Dakota in the logistics required to keep in combat.
But if the fighters had not done their job in enabling the transports to do their jod - relatively un-molested then they would have failed - great aircraft or not!
Once again it is for this reason that I voted for the Spitfire - it performed well from the get go - until the end of the war. It was successful in most theatres in which it saw service - taking into account poor tactics and inexperienced pilots. Once modifications were made to make the AC suitable for the conditions - or more MKs deployed to the non ETO's - the AC did OK.
The Spitfire also lead to naval versions and one could argue (a bit tentaively!) that it also played a role in the Supermarine Attacker - a jet engined version!
Not bad for an old crate!
vinnye, I agree that the Spitfire was one of the greatest aircraft of the war, if not ever. It was the onbly fighter, for instance, that was in the forefront of fighter perfomrance at the beginning of the war and still there at the end too, coupled to the fact that Britain was in the war for longer than any other nation, it makes the achievement even more remarkable.
While I also agree with FlyboyJ's advocacy of the C-47 for all the redsons he stated in previous posts. I must say I find the statement "Why pick a combat plane that had a limited impact in the war but soon was put out to pasture?" very odd.
Limited impact? It inspired a nation! Even without its combat record (which was far from 'limited), I think that is every bit as important as hauling crates
And it what sense was it put out to pasture 'soon'? it was a frontline fighter, still, as late as 1948, serving until 1954 in the RAF and for a further decade after that with some overseas airforces. it fought on the front line of every theatre until the end of war.
I'm sure you know what you are talking about flyboyJ, many many posts from you have illustrated this amply, but that comment on the Spitfire was rather dismissive wasn't it?
Vinnye, the Attacker was developed initially as the 'Jet Spiteful' so is indeed a direct descendant of the Mk1 Spitfire in that sense, although its a bit like Triggers Broom by this stage ( Fools and Horses reference for non uK readers - He had the same broom for 23 years working for the council, it only had 17 new heads and ten new handles!) so, as it was a swept wing Attacker, you could include the Swift as well if you like, even though that one was pants.
While I also agree with FlyboyJ's advocacy of the C-47 for all the redsons he stated in previous posts. I must say I find the statement "Why pick a combat plane that had a limited impact in the war but soon was put out to pasture?" very odd.
Limited impact? It inspired a nation! Even without its combat record (which was far from 'limited), I think that is every bit as important as hauling crates
And it what sense was it put out to pasture 'soon'? it was a frontline fighter, still, as late as 1948, serving until 1954 in the RAF and for a further decade after that with some overseas airforces. it fought on the front line of every theatre until the end of war.
I'm sure you know what you are talking about flyboyJ, many many posts from you have illustrated this amply, but that comment on the Spitfire was rather dismissive wasn't it?
Vinnye, the Attacker was developed initially as the 'Jet Spiteful' so is indeed a direct descendant of the Mk1 Spitfire in that sense, although its a bit like Triggers Broom by this stage ( Fools and Horses reference for non uK readers - He had the same broom for 23 years working for the council, it only had 17 new heads and ten new handles!) so, as it was a swept wing Attacker, you could include the Swift as well if you like, even though that one was pants.
Last edited:
I'm too stupid to know what those figures mean in real measurements (mph
) but the point is clear enough. On the one hand I should have said 'allied fighter'.On the other, sources Ive read state that while the Spit and 109 tended to leapfrog each other with each subsequent version (starting with the 109 ahead) from the Spitfire IX onwards the Spitfire was always better than the 109 with the 1944-45 models being far better overall.
That said, I wouldn't have too much argument against anyone that wanted to nominate the 109 as their greatest of the war, or the P-51 either come to that, anything that has 'iconic' status naturally has a claim. I just think that Vinnye has a good case and I'm on his side with the Spitfire.
Not true on either account.
The Bf 109 was in the same category performance wise as the Spitfire at the end of the war. The Germans would develop a Bf 109 that was better, then the Brits would do a Spit that outdid the 109, and then the Germans would contra it, and it went like this from the beginning to the end.
To say the Bf 109G and K were not as good performance wise as the Spits is wrong...
Germany technically was in the war longer than the Brits, so to say that the British were in the war the longest is wrong as well. Sorry to be technical about it...
Not true either, I think you will find that the Spit and Bf 109 were far closer to each other throughout the whole war, with both having advantages and disadvantages over the other.
Last edited:
Hi Adler, I don't believe anything that you said precludes the Spitfire being at the upper end of fighter capabilities, does it? I readiliy accept the Bf 109 is in the same bracket so that was an oversight on my part, but both the Spit and the 109 were at the forefront of fighter performance throughout the war and were unique in this respect. The sources I have read (Price, Glancey, Quill, McKinstry) all say the ultimate versions of the 109 were 'ruined' and the rival Spitfire models were better fighter aircraft. I am not a techie so that is why I must cite them instead of providing my own evidence.
Britain ( and the commonwealth = dont want to offend our colonial cousins )was in the war longer than anyone else. We declared war on 3rd Sept 1939, 2 days after the invasion of Poland, and continued to fight until the surrender of Japan in August 1945. How could Germany have been in longer than that?
Britain ( and the commonwealth = dont want to offend our colonial cousins
)was in the war longer than anyone else. We declared war on 3rd Sept 1939, 2 days after the invasion of Poland, and continued to fight until the surrender of Japan in August 1945. How could Germany have been in longer than that?
Last edited:
No you are correct that the Spit was an aircraft at the top, but to say that it was the only aircraft that was continually at the top from the beginning of the war to the end is false. One of them at the top yes, but the only...
Waynos said:Britain ( and the commonwealth = dont want to offend our colonial cousins
Excuse me I was thinking Europe only at that moment. My mistake...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Cart before the horse Vinnye. During WW2 fighter escort for transports were only required in very limited areas. The reason why I stand by the C-47 is because its entire configuration, systems, handling characteristics set the benchmark for all future military and commercial transports. Do you know that there are still 100 or more DC-3s C-47s still in service today? What other WW2 aircraft could claim 70 years in active service in substantial numbers?!?!?
evangilder
"Shooter"
Not only that, but the Israeli Air Force had C-47s in service until 1999! Some of those C-47s flew on D-Day, then served for France and Belgium before the Israelis bought them. Those aircraft saw continuous military use from about 1943-44 through 1999. That's an impressive record. I think the C-47 was the greatest aircraft ever made.
I wrote 'In the forefront' to mean 'amongst the best' not actually the best . I think that is where we had the disjoin.
What was the performance gain on the Bf109 between 1939 and 1945? I believe that no individual fighter aircraft gained as much as the Spitfire did over its wartime career.
Max speed in level flight (only major production models):
Bf 109B: 277 mph (446 km/h)
Bf 109C: 309 mph (498 km/h)
Bf 109D: 293 mph (471 km/h)
Bf 109E: 345 mph (555 km/h)
Bf 109F: 370 mph (595 km/h)
Bf 109G: 403 mph (650 km/h)
Bf 109K: 452 mph (728 km/h)
That makes a gain of 175 mph (282 km/h). Not sure if that is more or less than the Spitfire though. If I recall however the Spit MK1 had a top speed of 367 mph (582 km/h) and the F MK.24 had a top speed of 454 mph (731 km/h). So again both are very comparable.
In the end however there is way more to it than just speed. You have to take into account all performance, handling, etc. I think it is a safe bet to say that overall they were very well evenly matched throughout their careers. Both having advantages and disadvantages over the other, and both taking the lead in superiority over the other many times throughout the war.
Either way, they are both two of the greatest piston fighters built.
Bf 109B: 277 mph (446 km/h)
Bf 109C: 309 mph (498 km/h)
Bf 109D: 293 mph (471 km/h)
Bf 109E: 345 mph (555 km/h)
Bf 109F: 370 mph (595 km/h)
Bf 109G: 403 mph (650 km/h)
Bf 109K: 452 mph (728 km/h)
That makes a gain of 175 mph (282 km/h). Not sure if that is more or less than the Spitfire though. If I recall however the Spit MK1 had a top speed of 367 mph (582 km/h) and the F MK.24 had a top speed of 454 mph (731 km/h). So again both are very comparable.
In the end however there is way more to it than just speed. You have to take into account all performance, handling, etc. I think it is a safe bet to say that overall they were very well evenly matched throughout their careers. Both having advantages and disadvantages over the other, and both taking the lead in superiority over the other many times throughout the war.
Either way, they are both two of the greatest piston fighters built.
Last edited:
