Second opinions needed about some ww2 aircraft remarks..

[stalkervision]

I got to arguing about ww 2 fighter aircraft with someone on another site and I wanted to get some opinions on this other fellows remarks..Could someone help me out..?


>>Many of Russia's top air aces flew the P-39. At low altitude the P-39 could out turn the ME-109. However, above 17,000 the P-39 was mediocre due the fact its super charger was removed during production. This is why the P-39 was not successful in Britain. However, Chuck Yeager thought it was the best flying plane of the war. Russia's top air ace agreed with Yeager's assessment of the P-39. The P-40 warhawk was another under-rated US fighter that gave the Germans fits in Africa. Like the P-39 the P-40 had excellent performance below 17,000 feet. Both these aircraft used Allison inline engines minus the supercharger.

The television show Wings voted the P-51 Mustang the best fighter of the last century. Some Mustangs even served in Vietnam.
Today at least a 100 are flying. Most of the surviving Mustangs are used as air racers.

The best handling planes of the war were probably the Spitfire and Zero. However, at speed over 300+mph the P-40 and P-39 could turn tighter than the Zero.

Best Fighters of WW2.

ME 262
Mustang
Corsair
Thunderbolt
Lightening
Hellcat
FW190
Spitfire
ME109
Zero

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay well first of all the Russian would say anything they flew was the best aircraft to fly. The P-39 was crap, espeically at high alltitudes and without the supercharger. The P-40 was a good aircraft but was quickly outmatched by the middle of the war.

The P-51 is way overated. The later spitfires and Fw-190D were better. The P-47N was a much better aircraft then the P-51.

As for best fighters of WW2. The Me-262 had too many problems with it is engines. She was a great design and capable aircraft but needed engines! but otherwise I agree with the list.

 

[plan_D]

Almost anything could out-turn a A6M Zero at over 300 mph. It only had it's remarkable turn rate at around 275 mph. After that it was stiff and unable to turn.

The P-40 and P-39 were both poor aircraft. The P-40 was extremely poor, the Luftwaffe over Africa enjoyed easy meat with them. In the hands of great pilots the P-40 performed well but not every pilot is great.
They'd have enjoyed the P-36 Mohawk much more over Africa.

 

[cheddar cheese]

P-47N, P-38L and Fw-190D are best.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed there CC.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and if the P-51 was the best fighter of the last century i'll, well, do something to horrific to write on here even!!

 

[cheddar cheese]

Did an American write the report? If so its believable. If a Brit had wrote it he would have said the Spitfire.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

no because neither are the best, the best would be a modern fighter......

 

[FLYBOYJ]

no because neither are the best, the best would be a modern fighter......

Like the F-15 8)

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

or the Su-27........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The SU-27 doesn't have a 101-to-0 kill record 8)

 

[cheddar cheese]

Give me a Fokker DR.1 equipped with laser guided missiles and ill soon change that 8)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Give me a Fokker DR.1 equipped with laser guided missiles and ill soon change that 8)

I'd like to see that!

 

[wmaxt]

The SU-27 doesn't have a 101-to-0 kill record 8)

I think it's higher than that these days. Something I have to interject though my dad subscribes to "Air Force Magazine" In war games with the Indian Air Force with the SU-27s they won half or better in the last set of games. This has caused the Air Force to start examining the training, flight hours, radars etc of the airforce F-15, F-16 et al. to correct the posibility of the F-15 losing it's No. 1 status.

wmaxt

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The SU-27 doesn't have a 101-to-0 kill record 8)

I think it's higher than that these days. Something I have to interject though my dad subscribes to "Air Force Magazine" In war games with the Indian Air Force with the SU-27s they won half or better in the last set of games. This has caused the Air Force to start examining the training, flight hours, radars etc of the airforce F-15, F-16 et al. to correct the posibility of the F-15 losing it's No. 1 status.

wmaxt

Yep - we talked about that on another thread. I work at the US Air Force Academy and heard a few things (rumours) about this;

1. The Indian pilots were just better than the US guys sent over there.
2. The US guys were tired and some were at one point sick.
3. The Indians kept violating the "hardeck" (I don't believe that)
4. The US guys played "rope-a-dope."
5. The US guys just got their butts kicked!

I think that 1 and 5 were the case, but that's my own opinion! 8)

 

[wmaxt]

P-47N, P-38L and Fw-190D are best.

I agree. The P-38L and Fw-190/Ta-152 sort of define the catagory but I think the F4U-4 and Spitfire are right there too. The P-47N to me is a probable but not quite sure.

The P-51 is very over rated though it's a good, competitive long range fighter. The P-51s only outstanding feature as a single engine fighter was it's range.

wmaxt

 

[wmaxt]

The SU-27 doesn't have a 101-to-0 kill record 8)

Yep - we talked about that on another thread. I work at the US Air Force Academy and heard a few things (rumours) about this;

1. The Indian pilots were just better than the US guys sent over there.
2. The US guys were tired and some were at one point sick.
3. The Indians kept violating the "hardeck" (I don't believe that)
4. The US guys played "rope-a-dope."
5. The US guys just got their butts kicked!

I think that 1 and 5 were the case, but that's my own opinion! 8)

Parts of the evaluation were that

1. We need more variation in our agressor squadrons - we've fallen into Playing not fighting.
2. our radars were not giving us the advantages were used to/relied on.
3. the IAF flies and trains more than we do.

Bottom line we got complacent and lost.

wmaxt

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The SU-27 doesn't have a 101-to-0 kill record 8)

Yep - we talked about that on another thread. I work at the US Air Force Academy and heard a few things (rumours) about this;

1. The Indian pilots were just better than the US guys sent over there.
2. The US guys were tired and some were at one point sick.
3. The Indians kept violating the "hardeck" (I don't believe that)
4. The US guys played "rope-a-dope."
5. The US guys just got their butts kicked!

I think that 1 and 5 were the case, but that's my own opinion! 8)

Parts of the evaluation were that

1. We need more variation in our agressor squadrons - we've fallen into Playing not fighting.
2. our radars were not giving us the advantages were used to/relied on.
3. the IAF flies and trains more than we do.

Bottom line we got complacent and lost.

wmaxt

I agree!

 

[Nonskimmer]

Our boys used to do a lot more training than they do currently, and they were pretty damn good too. They still are, but the edge has started to dull a bit. The budget cuts have hurt in so many ways. Training is something you do not want to sacrifice!

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Since we're thoroughly off topic now, which would you all consider the better air to air fighter, The F-14 or F-15.

I have always thought the F-15 is better but there are quite a few people that claim that the newer F-14's are better.

So what do you think?