WWII fighter beauty contest. - Page 3

oedo · May 24, 2003, 23:33

I just don´t get it. all of these planes you talk about, are able to fly and all of them are able to destroy. they all look pretty much the same. why do you make such a big deal out of it?

Cruddy · May 24, 2003, 23:33

Spitfire. Lovely curved wings.

MichaeltheGreat · May 24, 2003, 23:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
but with the corsair, why are the most maneuverable planes universally always the hardest to pilot? I mean the Sopwith Camel and Fokker Triplane back in the first world war were also extremely maneuverable but killed plenty of new pilots especially the Camel. is there something about the structure that provides maneuverability that also makes them hard to fly?

You've got it. The Camel was a bit of an exception, in that it wasn't aerodynamic design, but excessive torque, that gave it extreme starboard maneuverability - to fly straight and level with it, you had to have a good deal of left rudder and left aileron input to counteract the engine torque. Let go of that and go into neutral stick and rudder, and you were in a right turn. Actually give input to turn right, and you were in a very sharp turn with a lot of wing stress, since the engine torque was helping you along. If you didn't coordinate the turn (i.e. have proper rudder input for the degree of aileron roll), you went straightaway into an almost certainly unrecoverable spin.

The basic nature of a maneuverable aircraft (high lift to weight ratio, aerodynamically large control surfaces, etc.) means that it's inherently unstable in flight.

The turkey shoot results and the Hellcat's overall kill ratio was due almost exclusively to high speed run and gun tactics.

Joseph · May 24, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
Albert:

Yaks 9 produced: 16,769 (All models, source)
P-51s produced: 7,956 (All models, source)
BF-109 produced: 35,000 (Source
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt produced: 15,677 (source)

Well you are right. But the Americans did produce more overall of different types in total. More capacity to do so.

Also I can't believe the Thunderbolt was left off the poll...

My source is The World War II Databook by John Ellis.
BF-109 =30,000 all types
A6M2 Zero = 11,720
Spitfire = 20,350 All types
P-51 = 15,470 All types
P-47 = 15,630 All types
Yak 9D = 16,800
Dewoitine D520 =910

GePap · May 24, 2003, 23:52

I like the F-190 series the best.
The Zero next, then the spitfire, then the P-47.

I don;t like the bulge of the P-51, and while the P-38 looks cool, I don;t think it is as beautiful a plane.

Joseph · May 24, 2003, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

Because volume of fire was seen as more important than caliber of fire. And at the speeds of dog fighting, they can make some good arguements. For interceptors tho, large calibers are superior, IMHO.

And, if this were a bomber beauty contest.... I've always had a place in my heart for the B-24 Mitchel. It was the first model airplane I built all by myself, and it really is a nice looking craft.

The Mitchel is a B-25. The B-24 was know as the Liberator.

Joseph · May 24, 2003, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Doesn't the Buffalo rank among the worst aircraft ever built?

One of the worst, but not the worst.

Joseph · May 25, 2003, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i guess another reason why we didnt use cannons was because we never had to combat heavy bombers... machine guns work good enough on fighters...

The P-38 had a 20 mm cannon in the nose with 4 .50s.

Joseph · May 25, 2003, 00:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
it's amazing how hard it is to find pictures of Japanese fighters...

but while looking, i found this gem...

by the way, why did jap planes have such unfierce names like "Violet Lightning", "Flying Swallow", "Moonlight", "Peregrine Falcon", and "Gale"?

thanks

This picture is a German Fieseler Storch FI 156.

Al B. Sure! · May 25, 2003, 00:14

Joseph:

yes you are right... it was mostly used by the Roumanian Air Force... really odd looking thing. can't imagine it flying anywhere near any of these other planes in this thread

Joseph · May 25, 2003, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
look at this thing...

called the "Magnificent Lightning"

This plane is the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender. Never produce. You can see one at the Smithsonian. Speed 390 at 19,300 ft. Service ceiling was 34,600 ft.

Master Zen · May 25, 2003, 00:18

In terms of sheer esthetic beauty... I'd go with the Spit, although I like the Mustang's more colorful paint schemes. I'd give both a tie.

Fez:

The Spit fought from 1939-1945 whearas the Mustang entered large numbers only in late 1943. The Spit was also the only allied plane capable of taking on the best German fighters in europe until the introduction of the P-38. Show some respect

MtG:

Dora Nine, hands down the most attractive radial-engined fighter ever,

Also the most-produced plane was the Il-2 Sturmovik but since it wasn't a fighter it was probably the Bf 109 or the Yak series (to bad nether;s production statistics seem to be 100% reliable).

Giancarlo · May 25, 2003, 00:23

I never was showing disrespect to the Spitfire. Infact it is a respectable fighter. I just like the P-51 more.. because it was a better.. albeit came out later.

Giancarlo · May 25, 2003, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph
My source is The World War II Databook by John Ellis.
BF-109 =30,000 all types
A6M2 Zero = 11,720
Spitfire = 20,350 All types
P-51 = 15,470 All types
P-47 = 15,630 All types
Yak 9D = 16,800
Dewoitine D520 =910

Hmm.. some of those numbers are completely different than my source. Either one of our sources is wrong.

cinch · May 25, 2003, 00:34

What about the good ol' Grumman Goblin?

Valiantly protecting the Maritimes from the Nazis!

Master Zen · May 25, 2003, 00:36

There was a saying, "The Mustang can't do what the Spitfire can, but it can do it over Berlin". From what I've read the Griffon-engined Spits were better than the Mustang.

I do admit however, that the Mustang was THE plane that contributed most to the demise of the luftwaffe after 1944, thanks to the attrition losses inflicted during the bomber offensive.

Now, for my shameless promo:

I have a website (unfinished) on miltary aviation, this is the link to the ww2 section (the only one semi-complete) but it's got a lot of info and nice pictures:

http://avia.masterzen.net/en/ww2

I also have production stats, I'm sure they also vary, there seems to be slight discrpancies between sources but overall the stats more or less give a good indication of the real production numbers. The 35,000 for the Yak is usually given to reflect the overall Yak series (3/5/7/9) since some people takem them as variants of a single design (which I think is wrong)

Jon Shafer · May 25, 2003, 00:38

As far as this poll goes, Spitfire is the best.

Out of everything though, nothing can compete with the one and only...

Er, wait, wrong picture.

Master Zen · May 25, 2003, 00:40

you wanted a nice Dora Nine pic?

shameless promo (from my site

)

Joseph · May 25, 2003, 00:42

If I could vote, I would vote for the P-51. In it's short time in the war, it shot down more German than any other aircraft.
No one here said anything about the British Tempest.

Master Zen · May 25, 2003, 00:42

Beautiful Spit pic:

Giancarlo · May 25, 2003, 00:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
There was a saying, "The Mustang can't do what the Spitfire can, but it can do it over Berlin". From what I've read the Griffon-engined Spits were better than the Mustang.

That is untrue.

Jon Shafer · May 25, 2003, 00:46

Why running across Me-262s is a bad idea...

Joseph · May 25, 2003, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

Hmm.. some of those numbers are completely different than my source. Either one of our sources is wrong.

I'm a member of Military Book Club, and I got this book about 2 months ago. It is new. They have a web site. Add .com to the name and you can see the site.

Jon Shafer · May 25, 2003, 00:47

Hmmm, my picture stopped working. Here's another.

Giancarlo · May 25, 2003, 00:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph
I'm a member of Military Book Club, and I got this book about 2 months ago. It is new. They have a web site. Add .com to the name and you can see the site.

Well what about my site?

So it is a piece of crap now because your source says something completely different?

Master Zen · May 25, 2003, 00:50

The was an account on S. Ambrose's D-Day book on an attack of 1,200 B-17s and 1,000 Mustang escorts against Berlin in 1945, it was attacked by a lone squadron of Me-262s, 20 bombers and 10 fighters were shot down with no losses whatsoever to the Germans. Impressive. If it had entered service in 1943...

Joseph · May 25, 2003, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by cinch
What about the good ol' Grumman Goblin?

Valiantly protecting the Maritimes from the Nazis!

A Grumman F3F-2 or 3

Giancarlo · May 25, 2003, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
The was an account on S. Ambrose's D-Day book on an attack of 1,200 B-17s and 1,000 Mustang escorts against Berlin in 1945, it was attacked by a lone squadron of Me-262s, 20 bombers and 10 fighters were shot down with no losses whatsoever to the Germans. Impressive. If it had entered service in 1943...

Probably because of the sheer logistics and the fact that the Germans had the defensive.

Master Zen · May 25, 2003, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez

Probably because of the sheer logistics and the fact that the Germans had the defensive.

or probably because it was far superior to any other plane of its time?

Joseph · May 25, 2003, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
There was a saying, "The Mustang can't do what the Spitfire can, but it can do it over Berlin". From what I've read the Griffon-engined Spits were better than the Mustang.

I do admit however, that the Mustang was THE plane that contributed most to the demise of the luftwaffe after 1944, thanks to the attrition losses inflicted during the bomber offensive.

Now, for my shameless promo:

I have a website (unfinished) on miltary aviation, this is the link to the ww2 section (the only one semi-complete) but it's got a lot of info and nice pictures:

http://avia.masterzen.net/en/ww2

I also have production stats, I'm sure they also vary, there seems to be slight discrpancies between sources but overall the stats more or less give a good indication of the real production numbers. The 35,000 for the Yak is usually given to reflect the overall Yak series (3/5/7/9) since some people takem them as variants of a single design (which I think is wrong)

Yak 1 = 8,700
Yak 3 = 4,850
Yak 7 = 6,400
Yak 9D = 16,800
______________
36,750