Greatest Fighter Aircraft of All Time

[the lancaster kicks ass]

especially if you want to keep several entire squadrons up at the same time which it sounds like he's implying.........

 

[CurzonDax]

And even if your numbers are correct, so what? The Spitfire was not the type of fighter you wanted in the SW Pacific.

[/quote]

Agreed. I think, unless they were on carriers, the spits were only used in CBI. I don't have my stuff in front of me but did the Aussies use them in New Guinea?

:{)

 

[syscom3]

The Spitfires were not even worthy of carrier operations (after 1942). The Corsair and Hellcat had similar performance figures with a more reliable radial engine, plus a lot longer endurance.

 

[syscom3]

Sending aircraft up to loiter for extended periods when they might not even face enemy aircraft is costly in fuel and wear and tear.

Evans, its war. Anything you do will wear out eqmt. Logistically, the consumption of fuel for these hypothetical P38 squadrons is minimal.

When you have 3000 aircraft of all types flying around, whats another 100?

 

[syscom3]

especially if you want to keep several entire squadrons up at the same time which it sounds like he's implying.........

Are you implying that its impossible to fly eight squadrons simultaneously?

The 8th and 9th AF could put up over 2000 aircraft in the air at one time early in 1944.

By middle 1944, that figure goes up to close to 3000.

 

[syscom3]

and in some cases even went as far as using british engines with british engineers high up in the design stages

but to say that interceptors were not needed over south england post '41 is rubbish, as has been said the raiders that would otherwise have caused havoc amoung the formating bombers had to be kept out, which is what the RAF, and more specifically the spitfire did, the LW still had fighters based in northern france, as long as they were there there was a threat......

Ummm, did you read where I said the Spit was a great fighter untill the end of 1943.......... will you please specify where I said that they werent needed prior to that time?

I will be clear about this one more time........
1) The Spitfire was the best fighter the allies had up to the end of 1943.
2) Once the P38/P47/P51 went looking for the Luftwaffe in their own backyard, the need for the Spitfire went downward. The Luftwaffe was fighting for their lives over Berlin, not the English Channel.
3) The P38 was designed as an interceptor. Its climb to 30,000 feet was similar to the Spit. There was no single engine fighter threat from the Luftwaffe aftre Jan 1944. It was German bombers that was the threat, and that meant the Spitfires superior maneuverability over the P38 meant nothing. If the 8th AF so desired, the P38 squadrons could have been converted to interceptors, kept back in England and performed the same function as the Spitfire, with the added bonus of enough fuel to stay on station for hours.
4)

 

[syscom3]

dude thats combat air patrol, NOT interception.............

Better to have ANY fighter in the air ready to attack, than ANY plane on the ground that needs time to scramble, form up, climb to altitude and then get ready for the fight.

dude that's not how the RAF operate, anywhere in the british military if you wanna so much as sneeze you gotta ask permission from your CO, the RAF wouldn't have made it as simple as phoning through to an american base, to an RAF base it would be easy, to put it through to an american base would be the absolute last resort, all other options would be weighed up first, if you think communications between the nations were that good or that the americans were seen as our saviors by the british you're wrong, it wasn't as easy as just picking up a phone and you weren't seen as our saviors, you were seen as loud and obnoxious, don't get me wrong we were glad to see you but only because it's someone else to, quite literally take some of the flak and give us food and metal...............

OK, FDR will send a telegram to Churchill and ask him to "please place a phone in your RAF operations room, next to the desk of your fighter director who has authority to scramble the fighters, and please have it setup as a direct line to the base where our P38's are based.. And by the way, I will have the 8th AF commander dispatch an officer each night for the next days comm frequencies so we can all talk on the same channel".

And the US was loud and obnoxious? heheheheheh, sore point with you still? hehehehehhehe.

even after a few hours driving a car your attention levels and energy levels drop significantly, to claim that a pilot who has been up in the air for hours will have the same energy levels as one who has just taken off is rubbish..........

5th AF, 8th AF (and in 1945, the 7th AF P47N's) went on 12 hour missions on a regular basis. The pilots hated it but when the battle started, they all were fully alert. Of course since the RAF never had those types of fighter missions, such pilot performance data was not fully understood by your aviation doctors and "shrinks".

...what's more when raids were coming in they were often very large, we needed 5 or 6 squadrons at a time to intercept, are you planning on keeping these 5 or 6 squadrons of P-38s up the air all together?

Well, since the AAF doctrine were for the squadrons to fight together as a group, it would take some changes in the tactics to have them fight as individual squadrons instead. No problem. The AAF were commanded by some smart people and could change doctrine and tactics as quick as needed.

Besides, they would be defending against small numbers of intruders, not mass attacks at the multiple group level.

 

[Hunter368]

While the jet age is not and never will be a area of interest for me, I do have a question about the Mig-21. How was it as a fighter? I have read one book that said it was a pure pleasure to fly but how good was it as a fighter ? Thanks

 

[FLYBOYJ]

While the jet age is not and never will be a area of interest for me, I do have a question about the Mig-21. How was it as a fighter? I have read one book that said it was a pure pleasure to fly but how good was it as a fighter ? Thanks

I've worked on a Mig-21, we had a Russian come and test fly it...

I was told it was a joy to fly but got real heavy at high speeds. There was a CG problem when flying without the centerline tank and allowing the main tank to go under 1/3 capacity (or something like that). It also lands REAL fast....

Its combat record had highs and lows - while formitable, it took its lumps in Vietnam and in the Middle East, and I know the Islamic Iranian Air Force shot down a few during the Iran - Iraq War.

The IAF still uses them and they did well aganist the PAF.

Here's a site that will give you combat data...

http://www.acig.org/

The guy I was working with broke an engine igniter, the whole tail had to come off to change it...

Al Hansen

 

[syscom3]

How come the Mig has no identification marks? I though all aircraft had to have "N" number displayed.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It does - If I remember correctly the N number is under the Horizontal Stab...

 

[Hunter368]

Thanks Joe

 

[pbfoot]

Wasn't there 2 versions of the Mig 21 called the big or little tail not sure which one was the newer but it was a fix for for porpoising at higher speeds or some such affliction

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Wasn't there 2 versions of the Mig 21 called the big or little tail not sure which one was the newer but it was a fix for for porpoising at higher speeds or some such affliction

There were 2 basic versions of the Mig-21 in several variants. The early Mig-21F was basically a day fighter and was probably the sleekest of the bunch. The Later Mig-21P, PF, PFM and BIS absorbed a lot of gadgets and somewhat changed flying characteristics and although there were more powerful engines installed, performance was a give and take situation. I've been around the F, PF and UTI (Trainer) versions and you could see how this aircraft really evolved.

I never heard about the high speed porpoise but it wouldn't surprise me. The Russian test pilot we hired told us numerous times that the Mig-21 could be a very dangerous aircraft in the hands of an untrained pilot...

 

[loomaluftwaffe]

and not to mention that you will lose 2 engines and a bigger plane if a P-38 gets lost, and also the superiority to German fighters, it isnt that easy to kill a 109 or a 190, well, not until the latter half of 1944

 

[syscom3]

and not to mention that you will lose 2 engines and a bigger plane if a P-38 gets lost, and also the superiority to German fighters, it isnt that easy to kill a 109 or a 190, well, not until the latter half of 1944

The engine manufactoring capacity of the US was so huge that replacing "lost" engines was not an issue.

The P38, while not a miracle fighter that could defeat any plane in the Luftwaffe, was still good enough to hold its own against an Me-109 or FW-190.

Probably more (this is just a guess......) than one German fighter pilot who was lost to a P38 in an "other than bounce" situation was due to the German pilot underestimating what the P38 could do.

 

[CurzonDax]

The Spitfires were not even worthy of carrier operations (after 1942). The Corsair and Hellcat had similar performance figures with a more reliable radial engine, plus a lot longer endurance.

I ran across this piece of info while researching a rubuttal on another thread. It seems that during Okinawa, the RN deployed a 4 carrier Task Force that seemed to have included Seafires. I guess they must of been used for local defense and possibly in close kamakazi hunters. Just guessing.

:{)

 

[syscom3]

The Seafires were used because the RN had nothing else to use. I dont know why they didnt request the Hellcat or Corsair.

The Seafires drawback was its short endurance and an airframe that was too weak for carrier ops.

The moment the Seafury became available, then the RN finally had a great shipboard fighter.

 

[Gnomey]

The RN showed the USN how to use the Corsair from carriers, they used them alongside Seafires on Carriers from 1943 (I think). They USN didn't use them on carriers until 1944...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Very Correct!