WHAT "DUD" WOULD YOU FLY?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

How about the Wirraway - it was a fighter used by Australian Airforce over New Guniea , Rabaul etc.. Adopted from the Texan trainer. Apparantly, one shot down a zero once.
 
Fairy Battle. Slow, easy to fly so its not tiring, decent range so I can go in the other direction, easy to land in out of the way fields, space for the girlfriend and a picnic.

What else would you need?
 

Joe - P-40 an easy choice for me in potential survivability with the P-39 next. The P-40 was inferior to contemporary Me 109 and Fw 190 (and Zero) but kinda held it's own as pilots got more combat experience
 
drgondog said:
Joe - P-40 an easy choice for me in potential survivability with the P-39 next. The P-40 was inferior to contemporary Me 109 and Fw 190 (and Zero) but kinda held it's own as pilots got more combat experience
Click to expand...

Oh agree 100% Bill - my point of the thread way back when was suppose it was late 1944 and you were a new fighter pilot ready to shoot down whatever in a new P-51 - then you find yourself flying P-40s for whatever reason. Or you're on your way to New Guinea and you're ready to get in a P-38 squadron and then suddenly you're flying P-39s....

Then again you could be a wanne-be Spitfire pilot and find yourself in a Battle or Defiant - Oh the disappointment!
 
Both the 40 and the 39 were solid aircraft when the right tactics were employed...

I'd go for the P39 just for the nose cannon and "car doors".

Chuck Yeager said that firing the cannon was like "lobbing grapefruits".

.
 
The Defiant was a fine flying aircraft but not when Bf 109s were about.

I would hate to call the P-40 a dud but I would go for that...They were still flying Hurricanes in 1944 so can I have one of them instead?
 

Are you sure the P-39 P-40 aren't too good to be on the "dud" list? Its hard to pick the best of a bad lot, because if its the best maybe its not a dud...

Perhaps this should be "what plane would you LEAST like to be in battle with?"

Speaking of Battle's I think it and the Devastator would be the worst. At least with the P-39 P-40 you had a chance to survive. And the Battle's flew the first "suicide missions" in the war.
 
Between P-39 and P-40, the P-39 had a much higher fatal accident rate in USAAF service. 47 per 100k flying hours v 17. See this page from USAAF stats digest, though you have to do a little arithmetic to get those numbers:
Army Air Forces in World War II

Otherwise, the armaments of the planes were different but basic performance was very similar for models with V-1710's, so the likes and dislikes (USAAF like the P-40 better, mainly for its successes in China, the Soviets liked the P-39 better) are probably mainly subjective.

On the list I also don't know why P-39 and P-40 are dud if Hurricane, MS406. Mc202 etc etc are not also duds. The Hurricane was an earlier plane, but a comparable or less capable plane ca. 1942 than either the P-40 or P-39, including side by side combat performance in places like early Pacific or Soviet northern theater. The P-39/40 were average fighters, not above average and not way below.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
8
Views
512
Snautzer01
What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
M
B-25 Hard to Fly?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
G
What are reliable YouTube sources?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
ian_
I
W
Here's a test for you all...
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register