drgondog
Major
here are a couple of them
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I dont know who the fu*k u think ur talking to pal, but u had better check urself immediately or I will drop the fuc*kin hammer on u....Not sure whether you think we are tramping on your ancestry or what your problem is, but get over it, it was inferior.
Yup That was my point. Was better at times and inferior at other. Of course theres one factor not mentioned - the pilot.
Someone commented that "That pretty much states what anyone with at least a lil bit of knowledge of aircraft knows. The key words were at certain altitudes. Each aircraft has its optimum arena where it will work best at. I guess Mike missed that part..."
I am an active commercial pilot, Flight instructor single engine land, multi engine land flight instructor, instrument flight instructor with a glider license. Crop dusted in the past. I think I have "lil bit of knowledge of aircraft". I was asking the same question of some of you?
I stand 100% behind what I said, as do the statistics, pilot reports and facts.
We'll forget this 'unreliability' issue that you seem to be having with the Focke-wulfConclusion P-51 was better than FW-190.
Add to that the P-51 could escort bombers deep into Germany (something either the Fw190 or Bf109 couldn't do) great distances and was still superior to either the Fw190 or Bf109. The P-51 was the only aircraft I know of at that time that could escort the bombers that distance, it surely had to be a better fighter than the Fw190 in it's time, but not the only one better.
The writer really gives the Fw190 poor marks at altitude against the P-51, where most combat occurred (protecting bombers). His conclusion supports mine
i never said or implied that as you say ". The Fw 190 was nothing close to being a piece of **** aircraft as you make it out to be."
If it were a beauty contest I would have to choose the 190.
why are you taking this so personal? not meant to be personal.
mike526mp said:for years from being around people who flew 51's and 47's and what i heard/read, sure seemed obvious to me what were the better fighters.
mike526mp said:I am proud of what the usa and UK produced, shows we can compete with anyone.
1. That's not what I said at all1. you mean to tell me with the huge formations of b-17's they could not get to the same altitude or higher altitude before they attack?
2. ever see the movie "12 o'clock high"?
3. I thought the question was which was the best overall fighter? why do you discount the range? I think that alone is huge (especially for the b-17 crews). that and given the fact the 51's were at least an equal even with the additional fuel to return makes it clear to me. bet with same time of fuel be even more obvious.
4. then read some of the spitfire XII pilot reports here, reads to me like the 190's were easy targets at this stage
5. On top of that i put a huge amount of credence on the people who flew them.
6. the book i gave link in previous post, he explains it much better than I. it has statistics, looks at all angles.
1. I stand corrected, it's not a comprehension issue - you're an ignorant a$$hole1. Let me try to comprehend this, please type slow for me.
2. You say it is pointless the views of Bud Anderson and other pilots who actually participated in the combat, the air combat between the 2 aircraft we are discussing, at the time it happened, in the aircraft of the era?
3. And Colin, you state, "I think your conclusions are superficial, based on your superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle." Then I guess you are saying Bud Anderson and other pilots also had a superficial understanding of air battle, but you somehow know it all?
4. Where do you get your expertise Colin? The book you make fun of has figures, facts statistics.
5. The book is written by someone who has studied it all, and by reading parts of it I imagine is smarter than you and of course me (remember my lack of comprehension so type slow for me Colin, I think you said that 5 times, I think I have caught on now) but then again it is all marginalized by your "understanding of that aspect of the air battle" that no one else seems to have but you.
6. Let's not let facts stand in your way Colin! And then you come to the discussion with "What I did not like is the attitude that you brought into the discussion, as well as making claims that are not true."
7. Let me make it simple for you Colin, for your "lack of comprehension". Take a P-51, a FW-190 of the same era, 2 equal pilots, equal amount of fuel (duration), any altitude (and tested at all altitudes), both see each other, object is to destroy the other, same altitude, both at high speed, neither at a tactical advantage, I would bet the P-51 wins 90-100 out of 100.
8. I think it is clear what you never liked is my conclusion. You have no facts other than early reports and figures, nothing of any value after 1943. Just your condescending attitude and your "non superficial understanding of that aspect of the air battle."
You sure convinced me Colin! You win Ace!