View Full Version : Best fighter of the war?
Had an idea this morning - I've seen a lot of people complaining that the current 'which is best?' threads that have started popping up recently.
So, in order to get the board's opinion on this topic once and for all, I have an idea. We take all of the fighters in common usage during the war, pair them off in a random draw and have a couple of days debating the pros and cons of each. At the end of it, we decide which was best. The best goes on to the next round, the loser drops to the wayside like so much burning, twisted metal chaff.
I'm happy to do all the work this will need, if anyone's interested?
IF YOU THINK I'M A SAD BASTARD WHO REALLY NEEDS TO GET A LIFE, THEN FEEL FREE TO TELL ME THAT TO
Also - if this is a success, we could do the other categories of aircraft - heavy bomber, tactical bomber, etc to.
Maybe would be a good ideea to discuss firstly on best fighter of Germany, British Empire, USA, Soviet Union and all countries which fought in WW2 and after that, with a limited number of planes and arguments from before, to discuss more for "the best fighter of WW2".
Maybe Dani, that's why I thought I'd get the board's opinion before jumping in and starting it. I thought that if we just did one thread for fighters, one for heavy bombers etc, it would give more scope for discussion - since most countries only used a small range of fighter aircraft (ie - Germany had Bf-109, Bf-110, Fw-190 and a couple of others) the debates would be over pretty quick. If we did every fighter on one thread, it might make it a bit more long running and diverse.
As an example of how it would go (keeping the international flavour for now, which can be changed if the majority wish)
Mitsibushi A6M 'Zeke' (Japan) vs Curtiss P-40 'Warhawk' (USA)
A6M
http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/thumbs/zeroflight-thumb.jpg
Max Speed - 351 mph (565 Km/h)
Service ceiling - 38517 ft (11740m)
Range - 710 miles (1143 km)
Rate of Climb - 19685ft (6000m) in 7 minutes
Armament - 1x 7.7mm (0.303in) and 1x 13.2mm (0.52in) MG in nose
2x 20mm (0.787in) cannon in wings
2x 60 or 250kg (132 or 551lb) bomb
Carrier borne fighter used by the Imperial Japanese Navy from 1939 until the end of the war. It was extremely agile, outclassing the Buffalo, Hurricane and Warhawk fighters it faced at first. The agility came at the price of being very lightweight, with virtually no armour included in the design.
P-40
http://www.cloud9photography.us/fp/FP10_Curtiss_P-40_Warhawk_ProducerPeterJMancus.jpg
Max Speed - 378mph (609 km/h)
Service Ceiling - 38000 ft (11580m)
Range - 240 miles (386 km)
Rate of Climb - 15000ft (4570m) in 6.7 minutes
Armament - 6x 12.7mm (0.5in) MGs in wings
Up to 3x 227kg (500lb) bombs
Used by the USAAF, RAF and many other allied nations from 1938 until then end of the war. Very heavy armement of six 50-cal machine guns, but slower than many newer fighters, which eventually replaced it. Gave good service in the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Far East.
Everyone then has a couple of days to give their opinion about each aircraft and cast their vote for the best. The opinions should be based on purely the aircraft (ie assuming the pilots are of a similar skill and experience and that the combat is completely even, with no advantages).
Eventually we get to the grand final and the winner takes the title of official WW2 in colour best fighter
BDL, if you remeber my discussion with Komissar http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=123, don't you agree that also we had to agree about the criteria (hope it is correct) needed to declare ww2 in colour best fighter?
:D :D
BDL, if you remeber my discussion with Komissar http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=123, don't you agree that also we had to agree about the criteria (hope it is correct) needed to declare ww2 in colour best fighter?
:D :D
We would Dani (criteria is the right word) - I posted the top speed, rate of climb etc more as a starting point to discussion, rather than a be all and end all. If I was doing it for real, I'd probably expand the descriptions a bit to, and include more pros and cons reported by the pilots that flew them - for example the Bf-109 was difficult to control on take off for inexperienced pilots and a lot died in accidents, somthing which IMO would count against it in these types of discussion. We could use this thread as a kick round for ideas of how to set it out/what to include etc before we get started with the competition?
Hanz Lutz
08-11-2005, 08:04 AM
For me the best fighters are german messerschmitt and british spitfire.
For me the best fighters are german messerschmitt
Name the type 'cause Messerschmit it is the manufacturer! :)
Hanz Lutz
08-11-2005, 08:39 AM
Dani i think on plane thats obvious ,i think BF-109 :wink:
:D Bf 109 G?
I don't mean to be rude, but I want to avoid any " sub marine spitfire" name of the plane. :D
South African Military
08-11-2005, 10:01 AM
ya, and what type of Spitfire?? Really guys if you know nothing about WW2 planes dont try to say something just for the sake of saying it!
mike M.
08-11-2005, 11:43 AM
Thats an easy question...hands down P-51D. :)
Can we leave the opinions until the thread's actually started please?
If people are interested, I'm off work tomorrow so I can get it sorted.
mike M.
08-11-2005, 12:54 PM
Oh...Sorry. I thought the thread had been started. :oops:
Right the list of nominees for the fighters debate is as follows:
Boomerang II (Australia)
MB152 (France)
D.520 (France)
Fw-190 D-9 (Germany)
Bf-109K-4 (Germany)
Tempest (UK)
Hurricane IIC (UK)
Spitfire XIV (UK)
G.55 Centauro (Italy)
MC.202 Folgore (Italy)
N1K1 Kyofu (Japan)
Ki-61 Hien (Japan)
A6M Zero (Japan)
Ki-84 Hayate (Japan)
Ki-43 Hayabusa (Japan)
Ki-44 Shoki (Japan)
P-39 Aircobra (USA)
P-63 Kingcobra (USA)
F2A Buffalo (USA)
P-36 (USA)
P-40E (USA)
F6F Hellcat (USA)
F4F Wildcat (USA)
P-51D Mustang (USA)
P-47 Thunderbolt (USA)
F-4U-4 Corsair (USA)
LaGG-3 (USSR)
La-7 (USSR)
MiG-3 (USSR)
Yak-9 (USSR)
IAR-80 (Romania)
The nominations are all single seat day fighters - therefore no P-38/Bf-110/Mosquito etc. If any fighters you desperately want to see have been missed, feel free to suggest them and I'll add them to the list. The draw for the first round will be done tomorrow evening, giving you 24 hours (ish) to get your nominations in)
editted to add - I've replaced the Gloster Gladiator with the Hawker Tempest, I only realised last night that I'd forgotten it. :oops:
editted a second time - I realised I'd put the Wildcat in twice :oops:
IAR-80 (Romania)
Edited: I want desperately( :) ) to be included in the list for debate.
Walther
08-12-2005, 02:41 PM
The problem is that you can only compare fighters of a given period. Existing planes had weaknesses, that would be fixed in the next generation.
Jan
Now we have to set the periods.
The problem is that you can only compare fighters of a given period. Existing planes had weaknesses, that would be fixed in the next generation.
Jan
That's the idea Jan, if one plane is better than another then it won't 'go through' as it where. I was hoping to keep it as simple as possible.
IAR-80 (Romania)
Edited: I want desperately( :) ) to be included in the list for debate.
Quoted from: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/iar80.html
The history of WWII aviation is dominated almost entirely by the aircraft of five countries, the USA, England, Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union. Although small numbers of other designs saw combat, the majority of these were poor performers and saw little action. The Romanian IAR.80 is an exception to the rule.
When it was introduced it could outperform many contemporary fighters, and even beat out advanced German designs in head to head competition. It went on to form the backbone of the Romanian fighter groups for a number of years and would score a number of surprising and important victories over the USAAF.
Edited: My petty argument...
It's included Dani - I might cut the list down a bit for simplicity (ie only have one type of Spitfire/Bf-109 etc). Otherwise this could go on for a long time.
:oops: Sorry, I didn't noticed your edit!
Hosenfield
08-12-2005, 02:56 PM
Fw-190 D-9 (Germany) is the best
Hosenfield, I could make 10,000 posts with .... is the best.
We want to debate. :D
I've revised the list to 32 fighters, which is the ideal number. If anyone desperately wants any others adding, post them here and I'll fit them in. Debates start at 1900Z tomorrow (ie, roughly 23 hours)
19.00 GMT?
That's right mate.
Right, since there are no more nominations, the draw has been made for the First Round:
Tempest (UK) v Ki-84 Hayate (Japan)
Hurricane IIC (UK) v La-7 (USSR)
P-63 Kingcobra (USA) v F-4U-4 Corsair (USA)
MC.202 Folgore (Italy) v P-47 Thunderbolt (USA)
Fw-190 D-9 (Germany) v F6F Hellcat (USA)
D.520 (France) v Yak-9 (USSR)
Ki-43 Hayabusa (Japan) v Ki-44 Shoki (Japan)
N1K1 Kyofu (Japan) v IAR-80 (Romania)
MB152 (France) v FM-2 Wildcat (USA)
A6M Zero (Japan) v Bf-109K-4 (Germany)
P-40E (USA) v Spitfire XIV (UK)
G.55 Centauro (Italy) v P-36 (USA)
MiG-3 (USSR) v P-39 Aircobra (USA)
Ki-61 Hien (Japan) v F2A Buffalo (USA)
P-51D Mustang (USA) v Boomerang II (Australia)
LaGG-3 (USSR) - Bye
editted to replace Gladiator with Tempest
editted second time - due to the Wildcat being put in twice, the LaGG-3 gets a bye to the second round. :oops:
Might as well get the first one started now, no point waiting:
P-51D Mustang vs Commonwealth Boomerang II (Australia)
P-51D Mustang
http://www.top-flite.com/airplanes/topa0110.jpg
Engine: 1,490hp Packard/Rolls Royce Merlin V V-12
Max Speed: 437mph (704 km/h)
Climb: 30000ft (9145m) in 13 minutes
Service Ceiling: 41900ft (12770m)
Maximum Range: 2,080 miles (3347km)
Weapons: 6x 12.7mm (0.5in) MGs in wings
Up to 2,000lb (908kg) of bombs or 6x 127mm (5in) rockets
First designed to a British specification (NA-73) for a long range escort fighter, the first Mustangs (MkIA) were rejected by the USAAF, although they were adopted in a close support role by the RAF. The British replaced the Packard engine, which they found underpowered, with the Rolls Royce Merlin which was already in widespread RAF service. They found this significantly increased the Mustang's performance. The USAAF finally adopted the aircraft and both found it ideal for escorting the long range daylight bombing raids over Germany.
Commonwealth Boomerang II
http://www.simviation.com/pageimages/boomerang4.jpg
Engine: 1200hp Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp
Max Speed: 296mph (464km/h)
Climb:
Service Ceiling: 29000ft (8845m)
Maximum Range: 930 (1490km)
Weapons: 2x 20mm Cannon and 4x 7.7mm (0.303in) MGs in wings
In 1942, the Australians found themselves on the front line against Japan with only a few American Brewster Buffalo fighters, which were soon outclassed by the Zero fighters of the Japanese Navy. In desperation the Australians asked Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation to produce a stop gap fighter based on the North American Trainer series which Aussie pilots were trained on. The CA-12 Boomerang was like most things Australian: Tough, with no frills...but it worked. It was outstandingly maneuverable, and was in no way whatsoever outclassed by its Japanese enemies. The Boomerang never carried bombs, but it did mark targets for "heavies". The Boomerang also carried out close support with its guns. The Boomerang was possibly the most successful stop-gap measure in history. It certainly proved its worth, for the Japanese never looked down their noses at the tough Boomerang. Production ceased in early 1944.
You've got until tomorrow evening (Brit time - roughly 35 hours from now) to get your votes in
ONE LINE ANSWERS WILL BE IGNORED - JUSTIFY YOUR OPINION!
Firefly
08-13-2005, 09:21 AM
Fw-190 D-9 (Germany) is the best
FW-TA-152? did it get into action?
It outperformed the Mustang.
Fw-190 D-9 (Germany) is the best
FW-TA-152? did it get into action?
It outperformed the Mustang.
Small number were in action, I don't think production got into full swing before the end of the war.
Or we could just not bother I suppose
festamus
08-15-2005, 11:33 AM
Just been away this weekend and only found this today!
P-51 wins hands down. While the Boomerang may have been able to hold it's own against Zero's, as the war went on, even the feared Zero became outdated and outclassed by the later Allied fighters. The P-51 remained dominant in the more "competitive" (in terms of aircraft advances) theater. While the Boomerang is to be admired for what it was - a superb stopgap, as your summary mentions - the P-51 was something of a "definitive" design in it's class. While both are "right aircraft at the right time", I see the P-51 as very much The aircraft at the right time. It wasn't a stop gap - it was an aircraft of "war winning" excellence. Of the blows that were landed on the German war effort, many would not have happened had the USAAF been forced to send it's bombers beyond fighter cover for a prolonged period of the war. It wasn't that it was faster or could turn tighter or had more guns than it's contemporaries - it was that it could be there where it's Allied contemporaries were not, and could then stand toe to toe with whatever enemy contemporary met it.
Festamus, cheers for the reply, glad someone had a crack at reasoned debate in a 'best ever...' thread :wink:
festamus
08-16-2005, 05:19 PM
Well I should warn you that if it was down to me, it'd be P-51 vs. Spit in the final round, and it'd be a draw until the Spit wins on looks. :)
Well I should warn you that if it was down to me, it'd be P-51 vs. Spit in the final round, and it'd be a draw until the Spit wins on looks. :)
Sounds similar to my opinion that mate
Firefly
08-17-2005, 08:11 AM
What about the Corsair though? Absolutely awesome, big radial air cooled, fast,and furious. I wouldnt write it off. I must do some reasearch on it.
If the thread had taken off, the Corsair was paired with the Kingcobra in the first round.
festamus
08-18-2005, 08:29 AM
Now that *could* be interesting... I'd be tempted to vote the Corsair through, given the Kingcobra was "give it to the Soviets" stuff... but then the Corsair wasn't the wonder plane people seem to remember it as. A Naval aircraft which had fundamental features leaving it none-too-suitable for carrier operation, with what sound like serious accident rates on landing... I know the Marines got good use out of it operating from island strips, but nonetheless, it's not like the P-51 vs Boomerang .... I actually have reservations about voting for the obvious choice. ;)
Well, if people are actually interested, we can resurrect the thread.
festamus
08-18-2005, 12:26 PM
I'd be up for that. I appreciate the initial interest may have semed low but it was only because I was away for the weekend securing accomodation for when I start my job in... well, Aircraft Test and Evaluation (!) that I for one didn't post sooner.
Anyone else! C'mon! Play the game! You know you want to!
Crab_to_be
08-18-2005, 12:28 PM
I don't know enough to play, but I want to spectate!
festamus
08-18-2005, 12:33 PM
Sure you do Crab. You're an Aeronautical Engineer too, are you not? Tell you what, I'll PM you with which way I think you should vote, hence doubling my voting power. Muhahahaha.
Well, if people are interested I'll stick the next contest up in the morning.
Sturmtruppen
08-18-2005, 01:26 PM
every plane used by the argentine-birtish 164 squad <<FIRMES VOLAMOS>>
festamus
08-18-2005, 06:47 PM
Eh? That's not exactly what this thread is about, now, is it?
Sturmtruppen
08-18-2005, 06:54 PM
Eh? That's not exactly what this thread is about, now, is it?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=716
My favourite fighter is Cassius Clay.
I preferred Muhammed Ali.
Sturmtruppen
08-18-2005, 07:08 PM
My favourite fighter is Cassius Clay.
I preferred Muhammed Ali.
wow!,the best joke i have ever seen!
it's a joke right?
PzKpfw VI Tiger
08-18-2005, 07:11 PM
My favourite fighter is Cassius Clay.
I preferred Muhammed Ali.
:lol: nice
festamus
08-18-2005, 07:54 PM
Eh? That's not exactly what this thread is about, now, is it?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=716
Yes, very nice Erwin, but you could maybe have tried reading THIS thread before posting the unjustified one line answer in it...
Sturmtruppen
08-18-2005, 08:02 PM
don't be angry,you are festamus! :wink:
festamus
08-19-2005, 02:34 PM
don't be angry,you are festamus! :wink:
How about not dragging down this thread the same as all the others do? BDL looks to have gone to an *awful* lot of trouble to make this a structured, justified, reasoned look at what we think is the best WWII fighter - not just a as per: every plane used by the argentine-birtish 164 squad <<FIRMES VOLAMOS>>
It's good manners to read a thread before posting in it. You clearly haven't. Why is that? Because you could wait to do the whole "I know what, I'll say every plane flown by my countrymen on the good guy's side during the war... because they were flown by Argentines, making them cool, and like, er, stuff". Makes a changing from idolising the SS just because they came to your country at least, I suppose. But you should have realised from earlier posts in a similar vein that this isn't what this thread is for!!!
BDL - are we going to have a round 2 or not? It could produce some interesting results in how we get there... The conclusion will doubtless be less interesting than the route to reach it. Certainly the way we are pitting one on one until we have a "grand final" and a winner is going to be interesting. Well, for me at least! I'm still agonizing over the Corsair v. Kingcobra because it looks like an easy answer but when you think about it... both were flawed yet both did great work... Tough one.
Firefly
08-19-2005, 02:38 PM
I have been doing my research too. I will be up for defending the Corsair, could be fun, as long as certain others dont come here for their sport of baiting.
festamus
08-19-2005, 02:43 PM
My gut response was to go for Corsair as it is far more the famous classic and the All-American hotrod... but then the doubts crept in. I'm tempted to play devil's advocate and see if I can present a case for the Kingcobra regardless based on the facts available but if I do that, it might distort the end result...
Firefly
08-19-2005, 02:46 PM
Go for it mate, I like a decent debate on WW2 equipment.
festamus
08-19-2005, 02:47 PM
Pistols at dawn as soon as BDL is ready.
EDIT: Sorry. Due to UK firearms legislation, that should in fact read Handbags
Firefly
08-19-2005, 02:48 PM
Pistols at dawn as soon as BDL is ready.
EDIT: Sorry. Due to UK firearms legislation, that should in fact read Handbags
Its nearly the season, why not agree on Conkers?
Crab_to_be
08-19-2005, 02:48 PM
If we delay until the Olympics, then the home office will temporarily declare pistol contests legal.
edited to add: What kind of a world would we live in where the Olympics could be awarded to a country where some of the disciplines are criminal in that country?
If we delay until the Olympics, then the home office will temporarily declare pistol contests legal.
edited to add: What kind of a world would we live in where the Olympics could be awarded to a country where some of the disciplines are criminal in that country?(My bold.)
Well said CTB !
festamus
08-19-2005, 07:35 PM
Cuts, don't encourage him. ;)
Sorry, next one will be done in a bit, I went and got hammered instead of doing it last night :oops:
Since there's a couple of Corsair fans:
P-63 Kingcobra (USA) v F-4U-4 Corsair (USA)
P-63 Kingcobra (USA)
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/p-63_2.jpg
Engine: 1325hp Allison V-1710-93
Maximum Speed: 410mph (660km/h)
Service Ceiling: 43,000ft (13,110m)
Rate of Climb: 25,000 feet in 7 minutes
Range: 450 miles (724km)
Armament: 1x 37mm cannon
4x 0.50in MGs
3x 522lb bombs
Developed from the P-39 Aircobra, the P-63 Kingcobra entered service in 1943 and 3,300 had been built by the time production ended in 1945. Very few were used by the USAAF, with the majority being delivered to the USSR under Lend-Lease. Most P-63s were used for ground attack rather than as pure fighters, particularly by the Soviets who used them as tank busters. Although it was a reasonably manouverable and well armed aircraft, which was also extremely robust, by the time it entered service it had been outclassed as a fighter.
Many of the American P-63s ended up in Operation Pinball, which used P-63s with a pilot flying the aircraft, with heavy armor, as flying live targets for recruits to practise their gunnery on.
F-4U-4 Corsair (USA)
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4u4spl3.jpg
Engine: 2450hp Pratt & Whitney R2800
Maximum Speed: 446mph (714 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 41,500ft (12,649m)
Rate of Climb: 4,170ft/minute
Range: 1,005 miles (1618km)
Armament: Either 6x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs or 4x 20mm cannon
Up to 3x 1,000lb bombs and 6x 127mm (5in) rockets
One of the great aircraft of the war, the Corsair was probably the best load carrying fighter of the war. Capable of lifting massive weights (it was reportedly possible to rig the Cosair with up to 6000lb of ordanance - more than some medium bombers!). Fast (faster than the P-51D) and very manouverable, the Corsair was also extremely robust, capable of soaking up a lot of battle damage, it was also more resistant to stall than the P-51D, making it easier to fly in a slow, turning dogfight. The Corsair also offered very good visibility from it's large, high cockpit.
Get your votes in then folks - remember to give at least an attempt at justifying your choice. You've got 72 hours(ish) from now.
Current scores - P-63 1 Corsair 1
For me the winner of this battle has to be the Corsair, a superb aircraft, heavily armed and capable of carrying a lot of external ordanance as well. It was one of the most manouverable aircraft of the war to, making it a very good aircraft for fighting in. The P-63 is a decent aircraft, but it just can't compare to the Corsair in my opinion.
festamus
08-20-2005, 08:49 AM
I'm going to play devil's advocate here - a lot of people with disagree with me but hey, that just mean's they'll have to get in here and vote against me and justify why! :D
Yes, the P-63 is only a "decent" aircraft living in the shadow of the P-51 and P-47 and hence getting shunted off to Russia for Lend-Lease, who then don't sing it's praises for "patriotic" reasons, apparently (far better to praise the local types).
Despite it's undoubted qualities, however, I'm [b]not[b] going to vote for the Corsair for the following reasons:
The entire design is dominated by the demands of carrier operations, at which it was appallingly unsuited! Any aircraft which earns the nickname "Ensign Eliminator" must be treat with suspicion!!! So on technical grounds, I'm going to vote for the P-63.
While the P-63 packages decent performance at lower levels, and an unquestionably strong punch (37mm cannon and 4 x 0.50 cal not to be sniffed at!) - the Corsair is a superb fighter completely unsuited to it's intended base of operations. The first one was delivered July 1942, yet wasn't cleared for operations from US carriers until 1944!!! Two years! The 1942 carrier qual trials led to the US Navy releasing the aircraft to the USMC, such a problematic carrier child it was. The US Navy - who had first dibs on such things, showed a preference for the F6F Hellcat, which will not such a sparkling performer in the air, was a better carrier aircraft.
The Corsair suffered from it's atrocious forward visibility on landing... hard enough to land on a carrier but when you can't see the deck. I've also recently found out while researching to back up my unexpected vote, that it used to stall without warning and drop the starboard wing, very possibly resulting in a spin - recovery from which was difficult. Not good for carrier ops either! It also had poor control and stability on touchdown, and was prone to bounce on landing. Almost as my were lost in landing accidents as air to air combat.
Used as a source:
http://www.f4ucorsair.com/tdata/history.htm
VERY GOOD, OBJECTIVE SITE, despite beig a fan site of the Corsair! Highly recommended reading and great ammunition for being an obnoxious, obstructive git voting against the tide. :)
Good points there Fest - but I did read that you got a stall warning with the Corsair about 6 or 7 mph before it actually stalled - the wings would start to judder (much like the Spitfire in that respect I suppose - the wing tips of the Spit stalled before the rest of the wing so the pilot would have a warning before stalling). I'll try and find the link again I read that on again.
festamus
08-20-2005, 09:34 AM
Come on the rest of you! I'm disrespecting an All-American Hot Rod of the Skies here, in favour of some wanna-be second-rater they sold to the Commies! Defend the honour of the Corsair, if you dare! POST! VOTE! Otherwise it's going to go to a draw!
ww2fanatic1944
08-20-2005, 08:33 PM
come on guys, there is no question the Corsair is by far the winner.
The Japanese were terrified of the corsair during the war because of its effectiveness and the noise it made from its oil coolers. They even gave the plane the nickname "Whistling Death". The Corsair turned out to be a very versatile plane since it was effective in both ground attacks and dogfights. In 1938, the plane was the fastest military plane on the earth, exceding 400mph. Also, the wings could fold in making for easy storage of the plane on a carrier. The Corsair is widely recognized as the most durable US plane during ww2!
come on guys, there is no question the Corsair is by far the winner.
The Japanese were terrified of the corsair during the war because of its effectiveness and the noise it made from its oil coolers. They even gave the plane the nickname "Whistling Death". The Corsair turned out to be a very versatile plane since it was effective in both ground attacks and dogfights. In 1938, the plane was the fastest military plane on the earth, exceding 400mph. Also, the wings could fold in making for easy storage of the plane on a carrier. The Corsair is widely recognized as the most durable US plane during ww2!
I thought the Beaufighter was 'Whispering Death'?
Corsair 2 P-38 1
Roughly 48 hours left for this one ladies and gents. Voting will close at roughly dinner time (ie midday) UK time (for those of you who don't know UK time, this post was made at 1240pm) on tuesday.
Voting closed. Corsair narrowly scrapes through 2 votes to 1.
The next one will probably be put up tomorrow, although I may get round to it tonight.
Next one then, and the daddy makes an appearance!!
Curtiss P-40E Warhawk (USA) vs Supermarine Spitfire (UK)
Curtiss P-40E
http://www.p40warhawk.com/P-40%20main.jpg
Developed from the P-36, the P-40 was the US' main front line fighter at the start of WW2. Although it was outclassed by many of its opponents (both German and Japanese) in terms of speed, manouverability and rate of climb, the P-40 earned a reputation for ruggedness (perhaps luckily, since it was so inferior to enemy aircraft in most other respects!). Many of the P-40s were sold to Britain and the Commonwealth, where they were mostly used as ground attack aircraft, giving valuable service in North Africa, Italy and the Far East.
Engine: 1150hp Allison V-1710-39
Maximum Speed: 362mph (583km/h)
Service ceiling: 29000ft (8840m)
Rate of Climb: 2100ft/min (640m/min)
Range: 650 miles (1046km)
Armament:6x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs
Up to 700lb (318kg) of bombs
Supermarine Spitfire XIV (UK)
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/WanakaWarbirds/Spitfires/MarkXiv/SpitfireXivBankingRightTopViewHills.jpg
Developed from the iconic (although numerically inferior to the Hurricane) aircraft of the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire XIV was late war development of the famous aircraft which many consider to be one of the best Spitfire marks. I could write all day about my personal favourite aircraft, but I'll keep this short! Loved by the pilots for it's responsive handling and docile flying nature, the Spitfire was an aircraft feared by any German or Japanese pilot that fought it. Extremely manouverable, fast, quick to climb and able to be continously updated (the Spitfire in its various marks was in service with the RAF from 1938 to 1954), the 'Spit' earned its reputation as one of the great aircraft of the war.
Engine: 2050hp Rolls Royce Griffon
Maximum Speed: 446mph (717km)
Service Ceiling: 44290ft (13500m)
Rate of Climb: 5040ft/min (1536m/min)
Range:560miles (740km)
Armament:2x 20mm Cannon and either 4x 7.7mm (0.303in) or 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs
Uo to 1,000lb (454kg) of bombs
The Spit has got my vote, on the specs posted it outperforms the P40E in every respect.
I'll try my best to keep aesthetics out of this, (I don't want to get into the realms of 'cool uniforms',) but it has a line unsurpassed by anything else.
Man of Stoat
08-24-2005, 05:28 AM
Is this one even really a contest? Spit!
South African Military
08-24-2005, 06:53 AM
Add to the Griffon Spitfire Spec. Up to 1,000lb of Bombs or Rocket projectiles!! oh, yeah, my vote goes to the Griffon Spit. and yeah, its going to be inevitable, but in the end its going to come down to the Griffon Spit and the P-51D, and my vote goes to the spit :wink: and you need my argument? well if you like i could just couple a few pages of the other debate :wink:
Is this one even really a contest? Spit!
It's certainly the most unmatched of the contests so far!
I've got to go for the Spit to, best looking, fastest, more manouverable, better climb rate, better armed and heavier bombload. I'll admit now that I'm biased towards the Spit anyway, but this one is no contest.
P-40 0-3 Spitfire
I'll give this one 24 hours to run, since it's so one sided.
festamus
08-24-2005, 07:06 AM
Spitfire wins my vote.
Since the RAF operated both, I hope our American cousins do not mind if I discuss in an RAF-biased context. Needless to say the USAAF replaced theirs as quickly as possible anyway.
The P-40 is indicative of the state of the second-raters and also-rans the US aircraft industry thought constituted "fighters" pre-war (that it took a British requirement to eventually produce the Mustang is pretty damning - not of the aero engineers who were superb, but of the procurement bod) Not *indecently* so of course - it was at least "modern" which was more than some countries could say... 0.50cal armaments too, not to be sniffed at. But perhaps not surprisingly, mediocre Allison engines did a similar job on the P-40 that they would have done on the P-51 had some clever chaps not decided to try strapping a Merlin on there. Only low-level performance was really any good, and as a serious fighter (rather than ground attack workhorse) it was out of it's depth.
But the proof is in the pudding and for aircraft that's "what service did they see". The P40 was another aircraft the RAF got initially because of a "cancelled" French order (by cancelled read: France was either invaded or collaborating and was thus too busy to take delivery...) and put into service on low level work in the North African desert, where resistance to the conditions perhaps mattered as much if not more than performance. And unlike some British produced aircraft, it earned it's keep well and wasn't a liability (cough cough Fairey Battle). So all in all not a lost cause, but not a Superstar of Flight.
UNLIKE the Spitfire. We all know it handled great and looks The Biz even today, but it's difficult to pick out other amazing features because of the prolific number of versions. Constantly improved performance meant it transitioned from being able to tussle with 109's to being able to tussle with 190's so very much the fighter for all occassions... Had the Spitfire had to be replaced for the RAF to remain competitive I'm not sure it'd be so highly thought of today, but it turned out the best replacement for a Spitfire was a faster, meaner Spitfire. Provided it wasn't bomber escort of course since the Spit never really had the legs to get past the Low Countries and is one of the few minus points.
So really the fact that the design had so much development potential in it is a big plus point. In it's earlier versions the Spitfire was graceful and full of Merlin-y goodness, but by it's XIV incarnation the Spitfire was something of a beast whose beautiful lines are somewhat compromised by whacking that manky big Griffon in there (yes, that's a technical term... :wink: ). The bulges to fit it in there either side of the top of the nose aren't really pretty are they... But good lord it's fast. Early Spits were underarmed - the 0.303 not being the best aircraft weapon - but I think even by the Battle of Britain they were playing around on a squadron or two's worth of Spits with 20mm cannon. Spits with cannon and machine guns were decently armed... something the arch-enemy the 109 was from the beginning (since it had that nice cannon firing through the centre line of the prop).
But credit where credit is due. The reason one wins my vote and the other doesn't stems from one main feature. It's not looks and it's not manoeuvrability... it's that one has a Merlin engine and all the greatness that then allowed... and the other does not. (edit: I KNOW the one in the vote is a Griffon example, but I don't really like the look of 'em compared to the Merlin marks so I'm in denial)
So that makes it 5-0 to the Spit now.
festamus
08-24-2005, 07:17 AM
It was 0-3 before and now it's 0-5? Have you counted Crab's postal vote which I've stolen too? :)
It was 0-3 before and now it's 0-5? Have you counted Crab's postal vote which I've stolen too? :)
:lol: I didn't see SAM's vote until I just opened it again then.
Stealing postal votes? You're not a Brummie muslim working for Labour are you?
Is this one even really a contest? Spit!
Spitfire! Any additional comment is useless!!! :D
Crab_to_be
08-24-2005, 07:31 AM
I'm perfectly capabe of voting for the Spitfire, any mark you care to name. See fes's post for the reasons.
Edited to add: It also passes an important test, as does the Hurricane. That is, it looks just right framed against the Kent countryside.
So 7-0 to the Spit then. Got an essay to write up tonight, but if I get a chance, I might bang the next one up tonight, instead of leaving this one. Leaving the P-40 in this fight is just cruel, better to take it behind the barn and give it the good news with a shotgun, it's for its own good.
festamus
08-24-2005, 07:29 PM
So what are we left with so far? P-51, Corsair and Spitfire remains, while Boomerang, P-63 Kingcobra and P-40 are eliminated? Well, so far, the system works, but then again, so far we've only had easy choices! It's going to be a real bitch when we're left with either two Johnny-noname fighters or two classics. I'm dreading the inevitable P-51 vs. Spitfire.
That said, as much as the last one was an easy vote, I feel sort of sorry for the P-40 as it wasn't a *horrible* aeroplane. Sure it was an also-ran, but it wasn't a *bad* aeroplane. It was just an American pre-war design... all of the stank a little; it wasn't the P-40's fault!
The original draw is on page 2, about half way down Festamus.
Right, the Spit v P-40 debate is now closed, what little debate there actually was for that one!
Todays offering, however, should sort the men from the boys:
A6M Zero (Japan) v Bf-109K-4 (Germany)
A-6M8 Zero (Japan)
http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/j/jp-zeros-flying.jpg
The final development of the famous line of fighters, the A6M8 was far better armed than its predecessors, but many of the old faults still remained. The Zero had dominated the skies above the Pacific for the first months of the war, but had gradually been caught up and surpassed by superior Allied designs such as the Corsair, Lightning, Mustang and Spitfire. Although the Zero was extremely manoueverable and easy to fly, thanks to its light design, it lacked armour protection both for the pilot and the fuel tanks. This meant that although it was far superior in many respects to the Allied fighters it first met (mostly Brewster Buffalo or Hurricane Mk1s for the Uk or the P-40 for the US), if the Allied pilot could get a shot at the Japanese, it would take very few rounds to cause either the death/wounding of the pilot or a hit and probable explosion on the fuel tank. Progressively upgraded throughout the war, the Zero gradually had some armour added in later marks, although this slightly degraded performance and was never as effectove as the heavier armour carried by most Allied fighters. The diving performance was also improved after it
was found that the Zero could be outdived by most Allied aircraft, meaning that even inferior aircraft could escape easily enough by going into a dive.
Engine: 1560hp Mitsibushi Kinsei 62 14 cylinder air cooled radial
Top Speed: 356 (573km/h) mph
Service Ceiling: 37,075ft (11,300m)
Rate of Climb: 16,685 ft (5085m) in 6 min 50 sec
Range: 956 miles (1538km)
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon, 2x 13.2mm MGs
Single 1,100lb bomb on the centreline and 2x 132lb bombs under the wings
Messerschmidt Bf-109K
http://acesofww2.com/denmark/BF109-4R3.jpg
The final development of another famous line of fighters, the Bf-109K had many improvements over its predecessors. A shortage of Fw-190s and the superiority of the Spitfire and Mustang over the Bf-109G meant that Messerschmidt were forced to upgrade the Bf-109 yet again. The engine was uprated and also had a nitrous oxide booster added. A pressurised cockpit was also fitted. Although rated as a very good fighter, by the time the Bf-109K-4 (the only mass produced version) was ready for production, the factories of the Reich were being battered day and night by RAF and USAAF bombers and only around 400 were finally produced.
Engine: 1550hp Daimler Benz DB-605 with nitrous oxide booster
Top Speed: 453mph (729km/h)
Service Ceiling: 41,010ft (12500m)
Rate of Climb: 4822ft (1470m)/minute
Range: 434 miles (700km)
Armament: 1x 30mm cannon, 2x 15mm MG
festamus
08-25-2005, 07:14 PM
Hmmm, this is more difficult.
Both were used to great success... by the losing sides. Both were start-of-war aircraft which were struggle at times as the war went on.
I'm minded to go for the Bf-109.
The Zero seriously lost it's grip in all aspects other than manoeuvrability. It was underpowered and that which gave it the virtues it possessed and made it a winner at the beginning of the war - a modern, light weight construction, also resulted in it's ultimate downfall. Tactics could be used to negate the manoeuvrability advantage and after that, the ridiculously powerful American fighters arriving mid War put the Zero firmly into the position of also-ran. They didn't even need to stay on a Zero's tail to empty the guns into it - a quick burst would usually see to a Zero.
From an aeronautical engineering point of view, the Zero is quite a marvel but the compromises designed in to achieve the performance it had left little room for rescuing the situation once the enemy figured out ways to overcome the manoeuvrability advantages... the plane wasn't powerful enough to slug it out and wasn't quick enough to get away. Compare the earlier mark Zero's to the Grumma Wildcat - sure, it's better performing fighter, but the Wildcat is *clearly* going to take more punishment - it's more than a tonne heavier. Whether this is a question of an inability of the Japanese to source a more powerful engine for the Zero, or whether they *could* have but didn't wake up and smell the coffee, I don't know.
The Bf-109 on the other hand is somewhat different to the Zero. While it always looks a physically smaller, lighter aircraft it is in fact around a ton heavier (empty) - a 109 empty is heavier than a Zero at MTOW. A more substantial airframe and more importantly, capable of having it's performance extended greatly between the pre-war models and the end of war models. As BDL's summary states - late mark 109 was "very good" - indeed it could mix it up with the Mustangs. The Zero certainly could not claim similar resurgence at any point after the time when allied tactics found ways to avoid a turning fight with the Zero. Sure the Zero was always much longer ranged than the 109, but then, it was a carrier aircraft for the Pacific theatre - it needed to be.
So - 109. It was able to stand the test of time and be competitive to the end of the war. The Zero was too reliant on the one trick, and that wasn't enough.
pdf27
08-25-2005, 07:31 PM
Another vote for the -109 here. Capable of competing on nearly equal terms with the best fighters of the day throughout it's life (something the Zero was never capable of - personally I'd argue that it was marginally capable against the best aircraft of the day in 1941/41, and only did so well because it never met them). The only advantage I can think of for the Zero is range, and that was only valuable in some very restricted circumstances found only really in the Pacific.
I'd go for the -109 myself, for the survivability factor - the extra armour gives any pilots that few rounds of damage more to get themselves out of danger. The Bf-109 also has speed on its side, as well as the pressurised cockpit making high altitude flight far more comfortable for the pilot.
3-0 to the Bf-109 then, with, say, 48 hours(ish) left for voting.
Firefly
08-26-2005, 11:29 AM
Not really anything to add to the debate on the two. In its day the Zero was king of the far east. In fact the allies discounted its ability. It allowed the japanese Navy (IJN) to strike from a greater distance than the US Navy (approx 100 miles). However, its the man in the machine as much as the machine here and after Midway, the man in the Japanese machine was invariably much less trained than his Allied counterpart.
As for the 109, well it proved its ability, like the Spitfire, to be continually upgraded. On the negative side, it had such flimsy wings that they couldnt hold the landing gear. This led to an awfull lot of landing accidents. As the war went on the Germans too cut back on trianing due to lack of fuel and as a consequence became less effective.
But machine against machine, well the answer can only be the 109.
I know this topic is only about existing planes, but as a natural born patriot id like to add some polish accent. Since Poland was first to fight against Germany, we haven't got chance to end project of renovation of polish military that started in late 36. From many prototypes of modern planes, the PZL.62 is the one of the best. It could be even a best of the fighters if he had chance to get into production.
PZL.62
http://www.cose.nd.e-wro.pl/rys049.jpg
Engine: ~1600HP Hispano-Suiza 12Z, 12 cylider, liquid cooled
Top Speed: 640-660 km/h
Service Ceiling: ~9000m
Range: ~800km
Max start weight: 3250kg
Weight: 2000kg
Armament: 1x Hispano-Suiza 20mm (behind the rotor), 6x PWU36 7,9mm and up to 500kg of bombs under wings.
Delete this post if it dosen't fulfil norms of posting in this topic.
Not a bad looking fighter for late 1930s that mate, pity it never got into production before you had your uninvited visitors from the west, could have given the Luftwaffe some nasty surprises.
Firefly
08-26-2005, 04:46 PM
Which country made the engines.
It suposed to be the French Hispano-Suiza 12Z (HS-89ter) constructed in 39, in prototype where used other engine becose Hispano-Suiza was still in first stage of production and didn't had projected HP. All spec are only suppositions and never where reached in real flight. All test on the proper engine where stoped by the war.
Hanz Lutz
08-26-2005, 06:45 PM
Contrary to what many people believe, Polish Air Force was NOT destroyed on the ground in the first few hours of the conflict and, despite being numerically and technically inferior to German Luftwaffe, managed to put on a brave defence. German Quartermaster General's reports admitted the loss of 258 planes throughout the Polish Campaign, and it can be stated with absolute certainty that more than 100 of these aircraft were shot down by Polish fighter pilots.
I am belived in that , :shock: now i not belive anymore
http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/Poland/
Firefly
08-26-2005, 06:55 PM
Contrary to what many people believe, Polish Air Force was NOT destroyed on the ground in the first few hours of the conflict and, despite being numerically and technically inferior to German Luftwaffe, managed to put on a brave defence. German Quartermaster General's reports admitted the loss of 258 planes throughout the Polish Campaign, and it can be stated with absolute certainty that more than 100 of these aircraft were shot down by Polish fighter pilots.
I am belived in that , :shock: now i not belive anymore
http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/Poland/
Although I dont doubt the numbers as they are from all causes. I would query the significant numbers of German tanks destroyed by Polish airpower. However the site makes an interesting read, good find Clause.
Hanz Lutz
08-26-2005, 07:05 PM
An interesting observation is that, throughout the campaign, more than 30 Polish aircraft were shot down by Polish anti-aircraft fire. This sad testimony to the efficiency of Polish AA gunmen.
From same site ,do you read this look's like a Polish have friendly fire too.
I check did germans have friendly fire ,in luftwaffe .
Firefly
08-26-2005, 07:16 PM
Everyone has friendly fire mate. Imagine being an AA gunner and suddeny aircarft fly towards you. What would be your first reaction?
Hanz Lutz
08-26-2005, 07:23 PM
Yeah you are probbly right Firefly every army have friendly fire ,but thats strange to me ,i cannot imagine how anyone can shot own soldier.
Maybe i think like that becouse i am young i never been in war or military training .
4-0 to the Bf-109 with 24 hours of voting left - anyone else got an opinion?
PzKpfw VI Tiger
08-27-2005, 12:07 PM
4-0 to the Bf-109 with 24 hours of voting left - anyone else got an opinion?
Messerschmitt Bf-109 :D :D It was teh Luftwaffe's standard single seat fighter for the first 3 years of WWII and was able to outrun or outgun all opposition, dominating the Polish PZL fighters and outfighting the French Morane-Saulnier MS :D
So, it finished 5-0 to the Bf-109, the next one will be sorted when I get a chance - probably tomorrow.
Topor
08-30-2005, 09:22 PM
Hello?
Is this thread deceased just as it gets interesting? :(
No, sorry. Had to write an essay up for work yesterday, so I didn't get chance to do one. I will try to get one done at dinner time today, if not tomorrow morning when I come off duty.
Apologies for not updating this before the weekend, work's been mad. I'll do it on monday instead.
Firefly
09-02-2005, 12:00 PM
No worries mate.
This seems to be the only actual ww2 related topic that is current. And it is also very interesting.
This seems to be the only actual ww2 related topic that is current.
Unfortunatelly... :(
MiG-3 (USSR) v P-39 Aircobra (USA)
http://www.iremember.ru/pilots/rybalko/MiG-3.jpg
Engine: 1,350hp Mikulin AM-35A
Max Speed: 400mph (640km/h)
Rate of Climb: 2894ft (882m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 39360ft (12000m)
Range: 781 miles (1250km)
Armament: 1x 12.7mm (0.50in) MG
2x 7.62mm (0.3in) MG
2x 220lb (100kg) bombs or 6x 82mm rockets
The MiG-3 was an attempt to correct the handling problems of the MiG-1, which it was reasonably succesful at. Used in large numbers (1200 had been delivered by the start of Operation Barbarossa), the MiG-3 had claimed a pair of Ju-88 bombers even before the war against Germany had officially started. The MiG-1 was designed as a high altitude interceptor and the MiG-3 also performed well at high altitudes. Unfortunately, most of the combat against the Germans was at low level, where the MiG-3 was nothing special. The end of production of the AM-35 engine was the end of the MiG-3, and attempts to re-engine it with either an AM-37 (which was also taken out of production) or the ASh-82 radial engine were never that succesful. Although development of the MiG-3 continued throughout the war with various engines, none of them were ever particularly succesful, and devlopement was halted when the air war over Germany showed that the piston fighter's day was over.
P-39 Aircobra (USA)
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/da/300px-P-39.jpg
Engine: 1200hp Allison V-1710
Top Speed: 376mph (605km/h)
Rate of Climb: 3,750ft (1,140m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 35,000ft (10,700m)
Range: 1,098 miles (1,770km)
Armament: 1x 37mm Cannon and either 4x 12.7mm (0.50in) or 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) and 4x 7.62mm (0.30in) MGs
500lb (230kg) of bombs
One of the main fighters in US service at the outbreak of war, the heavy P-39 suffered from the poor high altitude performance of the Allison engine, and was markedly inferior to contemporary European fighters (meaning that the first USAAF fighter group deployed to Europe was equipped with Spitfire Vs). The weight distribution was also poor and often caused the P-39 to go into a spin. The P-39s performance dropped off drastically above 17,000 feet, which limited it's usefulness as a traditional fighter, both in Europe and the Far East, where Japanese bombers often flew above the P-39's maximum ceiling.
pdf27
09-05-2005, 04:16 PM
Not really sure what to do about that one - what did the Russians think? They were after all the only users of the MiG-3, and were IIRC the major wartime user of the Aircobra. I suspect they probably preferred the Aircobra, but am not at all sure. I'm not voting yet.
Not really sure what to do about that one - what did the Russians think? They were after all the only users of the MiG-3, and were IIRC the major wartime user of the Aircobra. I suspect they probably preferred the Aircobra, but am not at all sure. I'm not voting yet.
Since we're debating one of the more obscure fighters (to the west) of the war, I'll try and do some more research tonight and post up a bit more about the MiG.
The following comments from a German expert, Dr. Ing. Karl-Heinz Steinicke, as quoted in the book Horrido! by Trevor J. Constable and Col. Raymond F. Toliver, are worth repeating.
"In July and August 1941, during the first aerial combats over Kiev, elegant low-wing monoplanes with straight engines appeared next to the Rata. A few of them had been seen over Lemberg during the first few days, but this didn't cause much of a surprise because they were held to be our own."
"The reaction, of course, was devastating, but only because of poor intelligence work."
"Noteworthy especially in this comparison (of German and Russian fighters most used in 1942) is the range of the MiG-3. In spite of greater speed the MiG-3 could fly 110 km farther than the worthy Bf 109F-4. Many times, this inferior range was a handicap to the German pilot, because it made a premature return flight necessary."
"It is also astonishing that the absolute maximum speed of the MiG-3 was higher than that of the Bf 109F-3. Since the Russian MiG-3 was more maneuverable than the Bf 109, it is really remarkable in retrospect that the German fighter pilots were so successful on the Russian Front. There were, of course, Soviet fighter planes that were not as efficient."
Since, in the West, the Bf 109F was considered to be the best, or at least one of the best, air superiority fighters in the world at that time, the MiG-3 is clearly worth examining more closely. "MiG," incidentally, is the acronym of the Mikoyan-Gurevich Experimental Construction Bureau design team.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/mig-3.htm
Firefly
09-06-2005, 02:44 PM
Im with pdf, Im looking through my books for references to both ac.
Will vote soon.
Firefly
09-06-2005, 03:06 PM
Right here goes. I vote for the Aircobra.
It was considered a failure by both the US and UK. However several Soviet pilots loved it and there were many Aces in it.
It was an extremely proficient aircraft at under 15000 feet where as the Mig 3 was designed as a high level interceptor and did not handle so well at lower altitudes.
As almost all the air combat in the East took place at these lower altitudes the Cobra outperformed the Mig in this respect.
I found a couple of decent sources:
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p39_airacobra.html#top
http://www.answers.com/topic/mikoyan-gurevich-mig-3
However, Im sure if the battle altitudes had been reversed the Mig would have done a lot better.
So its the Aircobra for me in this particular tricky match up.
festamus
09-07-2005, 02:41 PM
Sorry if I'm late to this one - over the weekend I moved into new accomodation at the other end of the country, and on Monday started my suuuuuuuuuper new job - only got internet working last night, when I first read this.
Since then, I've been agonizing. The MiG-3 is quite the sports car whereas the P-39 is the 1.0 litre hatchback. Underpowered and hence much unloved.
But looking at the MiG-3, it seems it's all performance and no teeth. The armament is, well, pitiful. AFAIK they are contemporary in terms of time so I won't apologise for docking the MiG-3 points for being underarmed... whereas if we were comparing an early mark Spitfire with 0.303" machine guns only with a cannon armed Tempest, say, I would count it as far less of a factor.
As well as poor armament, I'm not even convinced it really was "all that" in performance terms either given some of the things I've read.
I refer you to:
http://www.mmpbooks.biz/books/8373000658/mig-3.html
MiG-3, compared with MiG-1, had engine mo*ved about 10 cm forward, enlarged fuel tanks and bigger radiator under the fu*se*lage. Wheels and undercarriage covers were also changed. In spite of all these changes the aircraft still was very difficult to fly and had very low manoeuvrability.
I do wonder if claims that it was some sort of underrated Soviet superfighter which just missed the boat because the combat was at low level aren't just clutching at straws. It's easy for web sources to claim it was great but couldn't prove it because the combat was at low altitude... well if the combat wasn't where it was good, how do we even know if it was all that good there? Does that make sense?
So that's been enough to sow the seeds of doubt in my mind.
Now, the P-39. Not as fast, has one of those woeful Allison power plants in, and let's face it, is a bit of a misfit design in many respects - not all of them bad. I've read that the meaty 37mm cannon is no accident - whereas most aircraft are of the time were designed around an engine, the P-39 was designed around that monster cannon.
(ref: http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/p39.html).
Apparently the prototypes had a supercharger but this was removed to improve performance but limiting altitude... How removing the supercharger IMPROVES performance I don't know, since pistons aren't my thing.
So yeah, we all know that as a fighter it wasn't up to the dogfighting game... but that armament made it quite handy for beating up ground targets - which on the Eastern front where both of these types were used most, the P-39 was the better aeroplane. Therefore, it gets my vote.
Fest's vote using dodgy reasoning: P-39
So that's 2-0 to the American fighter up to now. I'll leave this one going until the weekend, give people a chance to get some research done.
So 7-0 to the Spit then. Got an essay to write up tonight, but if I get a chance, I might bang the next one up tonight, instead of leaving this one. Leaving the P-40 in this fight is just cruel, better to take it behind the barn and give it the good news with a shotgun, it's for its own good.
A little bit late :oops: ...
Found this:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/Spit2Manual.pdf :D
So 7-0 to the Spit then. Got an essay to write up tonight, but if I get a chance, I might bang the next one up tonight, instead of leaving this one. Leaving the P-40 in this fight is just cruel, better to take it behind the barn and give it the good news with a shotgun, it's for its own good.
A little bit late :oops: ...
Found this:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/spit/Spit2Manual.pdf :D
Nice find that Dani, thanks.
Just to add a bit of competition, I'm going for the MiG, although it is inferior at lower level, it was far superior to the P-39 at high level and although it wasn't as well armed as the P-39, it was more manouverable and the P-39 did have the tendancy to go into a spin thanks to the poor weight distribution.
2-1 to the P-39.
I'm going to finish this one in the morning (UK time - currently 2020 here, so you can work out from that your local time), since this one doesn't seem to have much interest about it.
2-1 to the P-39 with about 12 hours left
Firefly
09-10-2005, 03:31 PM
Dont give up on these BDL, I for one enjoy them and they are a good ww2 topic, probably the only one here for a while now.
Good stuff mate.
Dont give up on these BDL, I for one enjoy them and they are a good ww2 topic, probably the only one here for a while now.
Good stuff mate.
Won't mate, I think interest will pick up again when some of the more obscure fighters are gone.
Crab_to_be
09-10-2005, 04:48 PM
Dont give up on these BDL, I for one enjoy them and they are a good ww2 topic, probably the only one here for a while now.
Good stuff mate.
I second that! I've been reading the posts with great interest. I don't know enough about most of them to form an opinion so I stay quiet. This is an excellent topic: relevant, well presented and fascinating.
Firefly
09-10-2005, 04:54 PM
Maybe someone like hosenfield can expand on this and give us the best tank of ww2? That would be good too.
Maybe someone like hosenfield can expand on this and give us the best tank of ww2? That would be good too.
I can start working on a couple more threads tomorrow if people are interested? I'm on leave this week, so I've got plenty of time on my hands.
P-39 vs MiG-3 is now closed, P-39 takes the win, 2-1.
I'll sort the next one out this afternoon/evening.
MB152 (France) v FM-2 Wildcat (USA)
MB152 (France)
http://www.efsim.com/Images/mb152-0000.jpg
Maximum speed: 315 miles (509 km/h)
Range: 373 miles (600 km)
Service ceiling: 32,810ft (10,000m)
Rate of climb: 1,935ft/min (590 m/min)
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon and 2x 7.5mm MGs or 4x 7.5mm MGs
Developed from the Bloch MB.150 (which was so underpowered it was unable to take off!), the MB.152 equipped six fighter groupes of the Armee de la Air during the Battle of France. Although the armament was relativity heavy for it's day, the MB.152 was outclassed by more modern fighters like the Bf-109, due to it poor performance (particularly at higher altitudes) and short range. The Mb.152 was also very complicated to build, and although 482 had been completed before the French surrender, many of them lacked items such as propellers and gun sights and never left the ground.
F4-F Wildcat (USA)
http://tailwheels.free.fr/Falaise%2004/Images/Petites/FM2%202.JPG
Maximum Speed: 318mph (512km/h)
Range: 770 miles (1239km)
Service Ceiling: 34,000ft (10,638m)
Rate of Climb: 1,950ft (594m) per minute
Armament: 6x 12.7mm (0.50in)
The first all metal monoplane fighter bought by the US Navy, and also supplied in large numbers to the Royal Navy, the Wildcat proved to be a very dependable fighter, much loved by both its pilots and maintenance crews. Although the Wildcat was slow and unmavoeuverable compared to its main opponent, the Zero, it was more than able to hold its own until replaced by the F6F Hellcat and the F4U Corsair in 1943.
PzKpfw VI Tiger
09-11-2005, 02:25 PM
F4-F Wildcat. It flew with the US Navy and US Marines in all of the major Pacific battles, and in North Africa with the Navy.
Bloch (renamed after the war in Dassault) MB-152 was outclassed by Bf 109 in the Battle of France like BDL said.
France could compete with Bf only with Dewoitine 520 (delivered unfortunatelly too late and too few).
To be mentioned that in December 1940, two F4-F of Royal Navy made history by becoming the first American-made aircraft to down a German plane in WW2.
My vote goes to F4-F.
Edited: Tiger said already about F4-F!
2-0 to the Wildcat up to now then. I'll make my choice in the morning, and if no one else is interested in this one, I'll sort the next one out.
pdf27
09-13-2005, 03:20 PM
2-0 to the Wildcat up to now then. I'll make my choice in the morning, and if no one else is interested in this one, I'll sort the next one out.
Wildcat for me, although I'm not totally convinced. The Bloch was never really tried so you can't make a proper evaluation unfortunately.
Firefly
09-13-2005, 03:30 PM
I tend to agree with PDF, but the Widcat gets my vote. Its a Grumman after all. It held its own against the mighty Zero in the early pacific campaign and served throughout the war in many a guise.
A tough little robust stubby wingerd fighter that could take a hell of a punishment and still bang onto the carrier.
Did I mention it was a Grumman? In my opinion the best producers of naval aircraft for many a year!
Wildcat for me too.
I'd have to go for the Wildcat as well - proven in combat, and held it's own against it's opponents.
5-0 to the Wildcat at the close of voting
I'll do the next one later on.
festamus
09-14-2005, 04:34 PM
Sorry am a bit late to this one. Been a bit tired on the evenings from starting new job. All very worth it though. Still don't believe they *pay* me either! :)
Add another for the Wildcat. At the risk of sounding similarly smitten as Firefly, it's a Grumman. Tough as old boots and gets the job done with a minimum of flair and a maximum of... well.... undercarriage. :)
The Wildcat was a hugely influential aircraft and did the job asked of it. Its rival in this vote did not.
Wildcat.
Fw-190 D-9 (Germany) v F6F Hellcat (USA)
Fw-190D-9
http://www.axishistory.com/fileadmin/user_upload/u/usafmuseum-fw109d.jpg
Max Speed: 440mph (709km/h)
Service Ceiling: 40,000ft (12,191m)
Rate of Climb: 2,362ft (720m)/minute
Range: 520 miles (837km)
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon, 2x 13mm cannon. Some variants also carried anti-bomber rockets
Considered by many pilots to be Germany's finest piston engined fighter of the war, the Fw-190 was envisaged as a replacement for the Bf-109, although enough could never be built to replace the Messerschmidt. The Fw-190 was an extremely fast and agile fighter, which caused both the RAF and USAAF problems until the end of the war, although the lack of fuel and pilot training by the end of the war blunteed their effectiveness. Many German pilots considered the Fw-190 more than a match for the Mustangs and Spitfires they were facing. Some versions of the Fw-190 were equipped with radar, others were used as torpedo bombers (the USSR used a number of them in their Baltic Fleet, probably until about 1949) and others were built as fighter bombers.
F6F Hellcat (USA)
http://www.ww2guide.com/hellcats.jpg
Max Speed - 380mph (612km/h)
Service Ceiling - 37,300ft (11,369m)
Rate of Climb - 2,980ft (908m) per minute
Range - 945 miles (1521km)
Armament - 6x 12.7mm (0.50in) MG or 2x 20mm cannon and 4x 12.7mm (0.50in) MG. Up to 1,000lb of bombs
The main US carrier fighter for the last two years of the war, the Hellcat was a development of the Wildcat, which had been outclassed by the Zero in the Far East. The Hellcat was developed to counter the superior Japanese fighters and far surpassed them. It was very manoeuvarable for such a large machine as well as being extremely well armoured and rugged. The Hellcat was creditted with 6,000 kills during WW2, including 160 in one day at the 'Marianas Turkey Shoot.'
Firefly
09-14-2005, 05:34 PM
OOh, this requires some thought and research. A bad match up in the first round in my opinion. Both were excellent at what they did and the hellcat was, an er grumman, did I mention my love of Grummans? My heart says Hellcat, my head says FW...... I will ponder long on this one...
OOh, this requires some thought and research. A bad match up in the first round in my opinion. Both were excellent at what they did and the hellcat was, an er grumman, did I mention my love of Grummans? My heart says Hellcat, my head says FW...... I will ponder long on this one...
It was a completely random draw mate, although I'd have liked to have seen this in this later stages to. I'm going to give this one a good few days, because I think it's maybe the closest match up we've had yet.
Firefly
09-14-2005, 05:59 PM
I know, and I know, its still a toughie though, i go to sleep with my big book of german Fighter and the history of the Grumman Iron Works.... How could the draw be so cruel!
pdf27
09-14-2005, 06:46 PM
Fw-190 for me - the Hellcat did an immense amount to win the war in the Pacific and has a fantastic record, but IMHO the Fw-190 is simply the better fighter.
Firefly
09-15-2005, 04:33 PM
If it was any other version other than the D-9 i would go for the Hellcat, however, its not.
The hellcat could outclimb a D-9, but the D-9 was more manouverable and had the speed edge, while the Hellcat was undoubtedly more robust I would have to give my vote to the D-9. I tried to find some instances of Hellcat Vs FW-190 D9s but couldnt, the RN used hundreds of them, but they were mainly in the Pacific by the last year of the war, Okinawa etc.
So I vote FW190-D9
2-0 to the German up to now, I really can't make my mind up on it, will stick my answer up tomorrow.
festamus
09-16-2005, 06:24 PM
Hellcat. You can afford to trade off a chunk of performance when your design is that bloody rugged.
I can't vote for the Dora-9 because unlike the Hellcat, it clearly never quite dominated it's domain.
Personally, I have to go for the Fw-190. The fact that it never dominated like the Hellcat was down to the circumstances that it was forced to fight under, rather than the aircraft itself. It was faster and more manoeuverable than the Hellcat, although the Hellcat had more armour. It's a very close decision, but the Fw-190 just edges it for me.
3-1 to the Fw-190, I'll let this one run until tomorrow morning.
PzKpfw VI Tiger
09-17-2005, 09:23 AM
Personally, I have to go for the Fw-190. The fact that it never dominated like the Hellcat was down to the circumstances that it was forced to fight under, rather than the aircraft itself. It was faster and more manoeuverable than the Hellcat, although the Hellcat had more armour. It's a very close decision, but the Fw-190 just edges it for me.
Stole the words right out of my mouth :D FW-190 for me.
Voting closed for that round then, Hellcat goes out and the Fw-190 goes though.
I'll sort a new one out either this evening or tomorrow.
festamus
09-17-2005, 05:52 PM
Philistines :P
Hawker Hurricane IIC (UK) v La-7 (USSR)
Hawker Hurricane IIC (UK)
http://www.rogerdarlington.co.uk/BBMF3.jpg
Max Speed: 336mph (541km/h)
Service Ceiling: 35,600ft (10850m)
Rate of Climb: 2197ft (669m) per minute
Range: 468 miles (740km)
Armament: 4x 20mm cannon, 2x 500lb (227kg) bombs or 2x 44 gallon drop tanks or 8x 60lb rockets
The first combat aircraft to use rockets for ground attack, the Hurricane IIC was the final fighter version of the Hurricane. It was widely used on night intruder operations over France, where it proved popular with the pilots. It was very sturdy, able to absorb large amounts of battle damage and still bring the pilot home. It also had a very roomy cockpit compared to other fighters of the day, allowing the pilot some degree of comfort on the long intruder missions. Although not as fast or manoeuverable as some fighters, the Hurricane saw service in Europe, North Africa and the Far East, as a fighter and a fighter bomber and was also used at the Hurricat carried on Merchant Navy ships and launched from a catapult on the bow of the ship. The pilot would then bail out close to the ship and (hopefully) be picked up. The Hurri was also modified for carrier use as the Sea Hurricane.
La-7 (USSR)
http://xplanes.free.fr/lavo/images/lavotchkine_la9rd_rd13_01.jpg
Max Speed: 423mph (677km/h)
service Ceiling: 36,090 ft (11000m)
Rate of Climb: 3281ft (1000m) per minute
Range: 475 miles (765km)
Armament: 2x 20mm (23mm in some aircraft) cannon, up to 4x 82mm (3.23in) rockets or 331lb (150kg) of bombs.
The La-7 was a development of the La-5, with a lighter airframe and a more powerful engine. It was also the final Lavochkin design to use a mixed wood and metal frame. The La-7 was a fast fighter and also manoueverable. It was flown by many of the Soviet Union's leading aces, and also scored the first Communist victories over US aircraft, when one was mistakenly attacked by two P-51 Mustangs, both of which were shot down. The air cooled angine was also ideal for Soviet aircraft, as they were not affected by extreme cold temperature, as liquid cooler engines were. The La-7 was also the only Soviet fighter of the war to shoot down a jet, when an Me262 was shot down by Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub, the top allied ace of the war with 62 kills. The La-7 remained in service with the USSR and many other Communist countries for several years after the war, being given the NATO reporting name 'FIN'.
Also - I believe that the La-7 in the picture may be the experimental La-7D, which had two ramjets added beneath the wings.
Also - I believe that the La-7 in the picture may be the experimental La-7D, which had two ramjets added beneath the wings.
According to http://xplanes.free.fr/lavo/arl-1.html the pic shows a La-9RD.
I'll research more this evening.
According to http://xplanes.free.fr/lavo/arl-1.html the pic shows a La-9RD.
I'll research more this evening.
That's where I found the photo Dani, but I can't read French. I've read sources while doing this that say about ramjets being mounted on experimental La-7s. If anyone can read French, they might be able to confirm.
Move the cursor over the picture within that site and you'll see a comment. :D
Edited: "Le La-9RD a pulsoreacteur"
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1222/la742wh.jpg
Here it's La 7
The most advanced Soviet fighter produced during the war was the powerfully elegant Lavochkin LA-7, a fighter introduced in 1944 that was superior to anything the Luftwaffe flew; with 15000 planes produced, the LA-7 gave the Soviets the edge in a theatre Germany believed it dominated right to the end.
Simply better than Hurricane, I'd say.
I have to go with the La-7 on this one, although the Hurricane has a much heavier armament, the La-7 is faster and more manoeuverable. The Hurricane was a great aircraft in its day, and still filled an important ground attack role, but it had been overtaken by better fighters by 1944 when the La-7 appeared in numbers.
2-0 to the La-7.
Firefly
09-20-2005, 02:21 PM
The La-7 is so superiour I cant even think of any arguments.
La-7 for me.
The Hurricane was an excellent platform for its day though...
pdf27
09-23-2005, 01:49 PM
La-7 for me too - 4 years of war makes a hell of a difference.
La-7's through then, and a classic goes out.
Will stick another one up soon
festamus
09-24-2005, 02:26 PM
I abstained because I couldn't bring myself to vote against the Hurricane, and I would have had to. Hopefully the next one won't be so heart breaking!
Ki-43 Hayabusa (Japan) v Ki-44 Shoki (Japan)
Ki-43
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/IJARG/images/nakajimaki43-1.jpg
Top Speed: 329mph (530km/h)
Service Ceiling: 36,745ft (11200m)
Rate of Climb: 2,828ft (862m)/minute
Range: 1,094 miles (1,760km)
Armament: 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) MG plus 2x 250kg (551lb) bombs
With an underpowered engine and very light armament, the Hayabusha (Peregrine Falcon) was probably the most dangerously underrated Japanese fighter of the early war period. Outstandingly manoueverable, it attained complete mastery over the Hawker Hurricanes and Brewster Buffalos it faced in Burma. The flip side of this manoueverability was an exceedingly light design, which had very little armour and no self sealing fuel tanks. These limitations were realised and a second version was introduced (the Ki-43-II), which had pilot armour, a reflector gunsight and rudimentary self sealing tanks.
Ki-44
http://users.belgacom.net/avphoto/avion1/65502.jpg
Top Speed: 376mph (706km/h)
Service Ceiling: 36,745ft (11200m)
Rate of Climb: 3,832ft (1,168m)/minute
Range: 1,056miles (1,700km)
Armament: 4x 12.7m (0.50in) MGs
The Ki-44 Shoki (Demon) entered service in 1940, and initially proved unpopular with pilots due to high landing speeds and poor manoueverability. An improved Ki-44-IIa version was introduced after only 40 Ki-44-Is had been produced, which improved these deficencies. The major production version, the Ki-44-IIb, proved fairly succesful as an interceptor, with the vast majority being based in Japan as home defence fighters. The final version, the Ki-44-IIc was armed with either four 20mm cannon or two 40mm cannon and two .50in MGs, and proved extremely effective against Allied bombers in the closing stages of the war.
Probably a very difficult this one, with two fairly unknown fighters. I'm going to leave it over the weekend because I'm away from tomorrow until saturday evening.
BDL, tough one :D :D
Starting research a couple of days!!
BDL, tough one :D :D
Starting research a couple of days!!
That's why I thought I'd use this one for while I was away Dani, give everyone a chance to do their own research :wink:
PzKpfw VI Tiger
09-28-2005, 08:03 PM
My vote goes to the Ki - 43 because, and I quote:
The Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) was numerically the most important fighter used by the Japanese Army Air Force during the Pacific War. It remained in production from the beginning of the Pacific War until its end in August of 1945. In many ways, it was a transitional type, bridging the gap between the lightly-loaded fighter monoplanes of the late 1930s with their fixed undercarriages and open cockpits and the higher-powered heavy fighters of the early 1940s with their retractable undercarriages and enclosed cockpits. Its appearance was a complete surprise to the Allies, and the fighter proved to be superior in performance to most of its opponents during the first year of the Pacific War. Most of the Japanese Army's aces established the larger part of their scores while flying this airplane.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki43.html
1-0 to the Ki-43 then - is no one else interested in this one, or is everyone reading up on two unknown fighters?
PzKpfw VI Tiger
10-01-2005, 04:11 PM
is no one else interested in this one, or is everyone reading up on two unknown fighters?
Perhaps both :lol:
The Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki (Demon or Devil-Queller) interceptor was the only interceptor fighter serving with the Japanese Army when the B-29 campaign against Japan began. At that time, it was the fastest-climbing Japanese fighter in service, and was one of the few aircraft capable of reaching the B-29s at the altitudes at which they operated.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ki44.html
Also good armament, climb rate and speed.
I vote for KI-44.
Firefly
10-01-2005, 08:02 PM
Im sorry, but after extensive searching in my big books of ww2 aircraft, I just cant come to a conclusion here.
So reluctantly I abstain....
It's a very difficult choice, but I have to go with the Ki-44, it's faster, better armed and climbs faster (very important for an interceptor). 2-1 to the Ki-44, I'll leave this open till tonight to see if anyone else is interested.
Twitch1
10-04-2005, 01:18 PM
From the historical perspective the KI.43 is a clear winner in the fact that it was more widely used and a true backbone of the JAAF with 5,878 units produced.
The KI.44 has clearly superior performance but with only 1,228 made it did not gain noteriety like the Oscar did.
So that's 2-2 then. I'll leave it one more night and see if there's a deciding vote cast. If not, we'll have to think of a 'tie-breaker' to seperate them.
Can anyone think of anyway to seperate these? I was thinking of just a straight comparison of the specs, but if anyone can think of a better tie breaker, I'm all ears.
Twitch1
10-06-2005, 02:20 PM
If it were up to number of kills gained by pilots in the type the Hayabusa would win since straight performance isn't the whole story......
If it were up to number of kills gained by pilots in the type the Hayabusa would win since straight performance isn't the whole story......
Very true, but the number built will also affect how many kills they got. We need an easy tie breaker that can't be affected by how many were built.
PzKpfw VI Tiger
10-06-2005, 04:14 PM
Can anyone think of anyway to seperate these? I was thinking of just a straight comparison of the specs, but if anyone can think of a better tie breaker, I'm all ears.
I think that would be a pretty fair way to break the tie BDL.
Can anyone think of anyway to seperate these? I was thinking of just a straight comparison of the specs, but if anyone can think of a better tie breaker, I'm all ears.
I think that would be a pretty fair way to break the tie BDL.
I'm going to give it one more night to see if anyone has any better suggestions, then I think I will use that. The kills achieved idea is alright, as i said, but it is affected by how many were built, so isn't a fair method.
Topor
10-06-2005, 08:23 PM
Ki44 was faster & had better armament - no contest.
Firefly
10-07-2005, 03:39 AM
Why not simply divide the kills by number of aircraft in Service and voila we get a kill ratio? One with highest wins.
Why not simply divide the kills by number of aircraft in Service and voila we get a kill ratio? One with highest wins.
Not a bad plan for the future, but thanks to
Ki44 was faster & had better armament - no contest.
It's now 3-2 to the Ki-44.
Go go go for the next pair!!!
Will be done tomorrow morning Dani, I'm off to friday night poker night shortly.
Twitch1
10-07-2005, 01:01 PM
As a suggestion while we're on Japanese fighters- KI.84 Hayate vs J2M3 Raiden??http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Dunno.gif
As a suggestion while we're on Japanese fighters- KI.84 Hayate vs J2M3 Raiden??http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Dunno.gif
The list of fighters entered into the competition is on page 2 of this thread mate, I think I may have missed the J2M3 out for some reason :oops:
The next competition will be posted tomorrow, not today as promised. Apologies for the delay.
PzKpfw VI Tiger
10-09-2005, 01:15 PM
As a suggestion while we're on Japanese fighters- KI.84 Hayate vs J2M3 Raiden??http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Dunno.gif
The list of fighters entered into the competition is on page 2 of this thread mate, I think I may have missed the J2M3 out for some reason :oops:
The next competition will be posted tomorrow, not today as promised. Apologies for the delay.
Still waiting for the next one! :D
Still waiting for the next one! :D
As soon as my boots are bulled, you'll have it
G.55 Centauro (Italy) v P-36 (USA)
G.55 Centauro (Italy)
http://www.asoloflight.melograno.net/velivoli/G55/G55A.jpg
Max Speed: 391mph (630km/h)
Rate of Climb: 2734ft (833m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 41,667ft (12,700m)
Range: 746 miles (1200km)
Armament: 3x 20mm cannon and 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs. 2x 353lb (160kg) bomb racks
Great care was taken by the Fiat designer Giueseppe Gabrielli to blend an aerodynamically advanced airframe with a structrure that was robust enough to survive battle damage and that would be simple enough to mass production. The resulting aircraft, the G.55, proved to be both fast and manouevarable and very popular with the pilots. The first prototype was flown in April 1942 and the first types were flown in combat evaluation from Match 1943. The G.55 is considered to be the best production Italian fighters of the war and outperformed both the Fw-190A and the Bf-109G in combat trials (while being flown by both German and Italian pilots). Despite always being heavily outnumbered, the G.55 managed to shoot down many Allied aircraft, both fighters and bombers. A torpedo bomber version was also produced, carrying one 2,176lb torpedo under the fuselage.
P-36 (USA)
http://www.robins.af.mil/History/images/old%20aircraft/p-36.jpg
Max Speed: 313mph (450km/h)
Rate of Climb: 2,500ft (765m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 31,800ft (9,700m)
Range: 1,380 miles (2,220km)
Armament: 1x 12.7mm (0.50in) MG, 3x 7.62mm (0.3in) MGs
The P-36, developed from the Curtiss "Hawk" Model 75 originally designed for France, was first produced for the US Air Corps in 1938. Including 30 P-36G export models seized by the US Government in 1942 because of the German occupation of Norway, the Army Air Forces possessed a total of 243 P-36s.
Both France and the UK used the Hawk 75A in combat over Europe in 1939 and 1940, even though the airplane was obsolescent when compared to its major adversary, the Bf 109. During 1941, the AAF transferred 39 of its P-36s to Hawaii and 20 to Alaska, and with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, two of the first six AAF fighters to get off the ground to meet the enemy were P-36s. Following the outbreak of hostilities, the outmoded P-36 was relegated to training and courier duties within the U.S.A.
pdf27
10-09-2005, 03:05 PM
G-55 by a mile - the Hawk was obselete at the outbreak of war and rapidly got more so.
G-55 by a mile - the Hawk was oboselete at the outbreak of war and rapidly got more so.
Seconded!
PzKpfw VI Tiger
10-09-2005, 05:53 PM
G-55 by a mile - the Hawk was oboselete at the outbreak of war and rapidly got more so.
Seconded!
Thirded? :lol:
G-55 Centauro in German colours:
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3826/g55i7uw.jpg
And many P-36s in pre-war era.
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/9510/2068l9dt.jpg
The Hawk was one of the first aircraft into the air to meet the Japanese aircraft on their attack of Pearl Harbor.
G-55 by a mile - the Hawk was obselete at the outbreak of war and rapidly got more so.
Have to go with that one myself. I'll leave this open until tonight, then put the next one up. Doesn't seem much point in leaving such a one sided contest going.
Firefly
10-10-2005, 09:54 AM
G-55 by a mile - the Hawk was oboselete at the outbreak of war and rapidly got more so.
Seconded!
Thirded? :lol:
About sixethed by now.
G for me..................
Twitch1
10-10-2005, 03:33 PM
Most assuredly the G.55.
D.520 (France) v Yak-9 (USSR)
D.520 (France)
http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/D520/d520_2.jpg
Top Speed: 329mph (529km/h)
Service Ceiling: 36,090 feet (11,000m)
Rate of Climb: 2,362 feet (720m) per minute
Range: 620 miles (998km)
Armament: 1x 20mm cannon, 4x 7.5mm MGs
The Dewoitine D.520 started entering service just prior to the opening of World War II. It was the only design that came close to being a match for the latest German types like the Messerschmitt Bf 109 (in trials against a captured Bf-109E, the D.520 proved to be about 20mph slower, but much more manoueverable. They were also highly praised by Luftwaffe pilots who flew captured models), but French building priorities were so confused that mass production didn't start until after the war started, and only a small number were available to meet the Luftwaffe. After the French surrender, production was restarted to equip the air force of Vichy France. After Operation Torch, these were captured by the Germans occupying Vichy France and passed on to Bulgaria and Italy. A small number were also used by Romania.
Yak-9U (USSR)
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3093/210295so.jpg
Top Speed: 435mph (700km/h)
Service Ceiling: 39,040ft (11,900m)
Rate of Climb: 4,317ft (1,250m) per minute
Range: 540 miles (870km)
Armament: 1x 23mm cannon and 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs
Developed progressivley from the Yak-1, the Yak-9 was the last version of what is said to be 37,000 fighters built by Yakolev during the war. The final version, the Yak-9U is the point were Soviet technology finally caught up with the west and was much respected by Luftwaffe pilots as a threat, even in their Bf-109K and Fw-19D fighters. The Yak was one of the most manoueveable fighters of the war, especially the Yak-3, which was a lightened derivative of the Yak-1. Several versions of the Yak-9 were brought into service, including the Yak-9DD ultra long range fighter, used to escort USAF bombers on shuttle raids between the UK and the USSR and the Yak-9T anti-tank fighter with a heavy 37mm cannon to attack the thinner top armour of enemy tanks.
An interesting bit of cold war (Yak-9 related) politics I found while researching this -
"During 1949 the USSR provided surplus Yak-9P planes to some satellite states in the Soviet bloc in order to help them rebuild their air forces in the wake of West Berlin's blockade and the allied airlift. Due to human error, a particular section of the plane's cyrillic operating manual was omitted from the translation in some national languages. Before starting the Yak-9 plane, it was necessary to hand-crank a small cockpit-mounted oil pump 25 times to provide initial lubrication to the Klimov in-line vee engine, something that was not required for WWII German and western fighters equipped with forced-closed cycle lubrication systems. Skipping this unusual step resulted in frequent engine bakings during the take-off roll and initial climb, that claimed several fatalities during 1950.
The satellite states fearing humiliation and reprise from the USSR hastily staged public, pre-arranged trials to purge their new airforces of "Nazi remnants and imperialist saboteurs". Several officers were sentenced to death and executed in 1951, including Lajos Toth, a 28 victory scoring ace of the WWII Royal Hungarian Air Force, who had voluntarily returned from US captivity to help revive Hungarian aviation. The victims were cleared posthumously following the fall of communism."
editted to add photo of the Yak :oops:
festamus
10-12-2005, 04:30 PM
Yak-9. Truly an awesome fighter. Across the board a much better design. Yes, it appeared later in the war, but it certainly left it's mark whereas the D.520 never really got the chance.
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3093/210295so.jpg
Picture of a YAK-9U (missed by BDL by mistake).
I vote it without doubt. Far superior to D 520.
Firefly
10-12-2005, 06:10 PM
Yak-9. Truly an awesome fighter. Across the board a much better design. Yes, it appeared later in the war, but it certainly left it's mark whereas the D.520 never really got the chance.
Seconded here.
YAK for me.
pdf27
10-12-2005, 06:13 PM
Seconded here.
YAK for me.
Thirded (fourthed?) - no contest.
Picture of a YAK-9U (missed by BDL by mistake).
I vote it without doubt. Far superior to D 520.
cheers Dani, have added it to my original post :oops:
PzKpfw VI Tiger
10-12-2005, 07:46 PM
Seconded here.
YAK for me.
Thirded (fourthed?) - no contest.
Fourthed... :lol: ... I agree with pdf, there really is no contest.
Topor
10-12-2005, 08:33 PM
Two aircraft a generation apart in performance.
The Yak wins without a doubt.
BDL, next draw please :lol: :lol:
BDL, next draw please :lol: :lol:
Being researched as we speak mate, had an exam this morning, which is why it wasn't done last night
Hawker Tempest (UK) v Ki-84 Hayate (Japan)
Hawker Tempest V (UK)
http://www.constable.ca/tempestmk52.jpg
Top Speed: 426mph (686km/h)
Service Ceiling: 36,500ft (11,125m)
Rate of Climb: 4,520ft (1,377m) per minute
Range: 820 miles (1,319km)
Armament: 4x 20mm cannon and either 8x 60lb rockets or 2x 1,000lb bombs
After the Hawker Typhoon was found to have a disappointing performance for a fighter, the thick wing of the Typhoon was replaced with a thinner eliptical wing to produce the Hawker Tempest. This was a far superior fighter to the Typhoon and one Me 262 pilot said "the Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed".
Very fast and very heavily armed, the Tempest was used by the RAF from 8th June 1944 (the first time a Tempest fought enemy aircraft, shooting down three Bf109G fighters without loss to themselves) until after the end of the war, giving valuable service in both Europe and the Far East. The Tempest was also used as one of the fighters fast enough to intercept the V-1 rockets, destroying 686 rockets between June and September.
Ki-84 Hayate (Japan)
http://homepage3.nifty.com/astroboy/japan/ki84.JPG
Top Speed: 392mph (631km/h)
Service Ceiling: 34,449ft (10,500m)
Rate of Climb: 2,780ft (847m) per minute
Range: 1,053miles (1,695km)
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon and 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs plus 2x 551lb (250kg) bombs
Probably the best fighter available to Japan by the end of the war, the Hayate (Gale) had both a decent performance and a (by Japanese standards) very heavy armament, capable of shooting down the heavy US bombers. The Ki-84 met with immediate approval from Japanese as soon as the prototype was flown, but was still subjected to lengthy service trials which delayed its entry into combat. Although the design had the potential to be a world class fighter, a lack of fuel and materials, a shortage of properly trained pilots and poor production quality stopped it from reaching the full potential.
Topor
10-14-2005, 08:49 PM
Tempest for me.
Faster, better armed & armoured, faster climbing & doubtless faster in the dive.
The narrow planform of the elliptical wing on the Tempest made for an exceedingly agile aircraft.
The Japanese fighters were always more vulnerable to damage than those of the Allies - Oriental mindset?
seandelevan
10-14-2005, 11:12 PM
Didn't the Ki-84 out perform the P-51 and the P-47 in post war tests on enemy aircraft???
Check this link.....
http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/Hayate.htm
after reading this my vote goes to the FRANK.
Tempest for me.
Faster, better armed & armoured, faster climbing & doubtless faster in the dive.
Seconded. Nothing more to add.
pdf27
10-15-2005, 06:22 AM
Tempest for me, but that's really just a highly biased opinion based on the fact that I happen to love the aircraft. It is the absolute epitome of the late war "brutes" which represent the pinnacle of piston engined aircraft (jets just don't have the same soul to them). My ambition for years (which I'll never have the flying skill or cash to fulfil) has been to take a Tempest fitted with a tuned up Sabre and an annular radiator to the Reno air races...
3-1 to the Tempest up to now.
Will add my own vote tomorrow (probably)
festamus
10-15-2005, 06:36 PM
Tempest.
The epitome of all that is piston powered and over-engined.
And f'ing good looking too. Anyone who's been to Hendon will understand twice over.
The Japanese fighter is good, but not quite a Tempest - a by-word for power of the piston engined variety, and which outguns it's Japanese adversary.
festamus
10-16-2005, 05:03 AM
Don't ever post drunk and then look back at your post in the morning!
Firefly
10-17-2005, 03:30 AM
I have to go with the Tempest as well here. For the reasons stated above. Nothing more to say really.
PzKpfw VI Tiger
10-17-2005, 07:44 AM
I have to go with the Tempest as well here. For the reasons stated above. Nothing more to say really.
Agreed. Tempest has my vote.
Don't ever post drunk and then look back at your post in the morning!
Nice.... :lol:
Firefly
10-17-2005, 10:56 AM
Didn't the Ki-84 out perform the P-51 and the P-47 in post war tests on enemy aircraft???
Check this link.....
http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/Hayate.htm
after reading this my vote goes to the FRANK.
Just a quick hi and welcome to the site. Look forward to seeing more posts from you in future.
Sturmtruppen
10-17-2005, 11:08 AM
Don't ever post drunk and then look back at your post in the morning!
aaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!!! :?
Don't ever post drunk and then look back at your post in the morning!
aaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!!! :?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Twitch1
10-17-2005, 01:51 PM
While mostly I would normally go with a big energy fighter on this one the Hayate is substantial enough of a Jap plane for me to go with between the 2, especially the models with heavy armament.
KI.84
6-2 to the Tempest, I'll leave it one more night and see what happends.
seandelevan
10-17-2005, 10:51 PM
While mostly I would normally go with a big energy fighter on this one the Hayate is substantial enough of a Jap plane for me to go with between the 2, especially the models with heavy armament.
KI.84
Yeah I was impressed with the Ki-84IC version carrying two 30mm and two 20mm cannons.
LargeBrew
10-17-2005, 11:05 PM
The Tempest is both asthetically pleasing but as it could chase a V1 and worry a jet pilot it's got my vote.
Panzerknacker
10-18-2005, 09:30 AM
My answer is the FW-190D, even it had no many chances to probe itself due it was introduced in the late war stage.
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/1213/fw190d92sx.jpg
http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/yellow13.jpg
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=18392#18392
Panzerknacker, check the above link!
Also http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=26673#26673
A little bit late for voting FW.
Panzerknacker
10-18-2005, 08:09 PM
Well....I am not aware about the contest...I simply gave my opinion.
PzKpfw VI Tiger
10-21-2005, 07:02 PM
Waiting for another quiz BDL :D
Waiting for another quiz BDL :D
There'll be one in the morning mate
PzKpfw VI Tiger
10-21-2005, 07:40 PM
Waiting for another quiz BDL :D
There'll be one in the morning mate
M'kay :D
MC.202 Folgore (Italy) vs P-47 Thunderbolt (USA)
MC.202 Folgore (Italy)
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Macchi%20MC.202.jpg
Top Speed: 373mph (600km/h)
Rate of Climb: 3,566ft (1,087m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 37,730 (11,500m)
Range: 379 miles (610km)
Armament: 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs in nose plus provision for 2x 7.7mm (0.303in) MGs in the wings
One of the best Italian fighters of the war, the MC.202 Folgore (Thunderbolt) was developed from the radial engined MC.200, although the radial engine was replaced with a licence built DB.501. The Folgore entered service in 1941, but production of the engine was slow and consequently the build up of Folgore strength was slowed down.
In service, the Folgore proved itself superior to the Hurricane and P-40, and was well matched with the Spitfire V in terms of performance, but was underarmed which prevented it from shooting down many Allied bombers. It could out turn any Allied fighter in a dogfight (even the Spitfire) and only the Spitfire and the P-51 were considered a real match for it.
P-47 Thunderbolt (USA)
http://www.edwards.af.mil/gallery/yeager/images/screen/p47-1.jpg
Top Speed: 428mph (689km/h)
Rate of Climb: 2,222ft (677m) per minute
Service Ceiling: 42,000ft (12,800m)
Range: 1,260miles (2,028km)
Armament: 8x 12.7mm MGs, up to two 1,000lb (454kg) bombs
First flown in 1941, the P-47 was the largest and heaviest single piston engined fighter ever built, and British Spitfire pilots joked that the pilots would be able to avoid German fire by undoing their harnesses and running round the cockpit. Early P-47 Thunderbolts proved to possess a poor rate of climb and were not very manoueverable, although they proved popular with pilots because of the large amount of battle damage they were able to absorb (pilots called in the 'Unbreakable' or the 'Plane that can do anything'). The pilots knew that they would be unable to dogfight with Luftwaffe pilots in their massive, heavy fighters and soon learned to use the very high dive speed of the P-47 to 'bounce' Bf-109s and Fw-190s and escape before getting entangled in a battle with a much more manoueverable aircraft. Using these tactics proved very succesful, with the P-47 only losing 0.7% of those aircaft sent into combat from enemy action.
seandelevan
10-23-2005, 08:13 AM
Vote goes to the Jug. Proved itself throughout the war in two theaters racking up many kills. Also one of the most heavily armed Allied fighters!
festamus
10-23-2005, 09:04 AM
Ugh. Tough one. The P-47 wasn't the wonder aircraft the P-51 was... but I have a certain liking for it. Anything whose design has R.F.'s in double digits works for me. ;)
I urge anyone to go to Hendon, and stand next to one of the British WW2 fighters... then stand next to the P-47. You'd be forgiven for thinking, given the scaling, that it was a bomber. It's huuuuuuuuuge by comparison!
Will vote later.
Ugh. Tough one. The P-47 wasn't the wonder aircraft the P-51 was... but I have a certain liking for it. Anything whose design has R.F.'s in double digits works for me. ;)
I urge anyone to go to Hendon, and stand next to one of the British WW2 fighters... then stand next to the P-47. You'd be forgiven for thinking, given the scaling, that it was a bomber. It's huuuuuuuuuge by comparison!
Will vote later.
I found a fantastic quote from a US pilot who's squadron changed over from Spitfires to P-47s. I'm busy with an assignment for work at the minute, will post it up later/tomorrow.
Firefly
10-23-2005, 02:37 PM
I have to go with the Jug here. Big, rigged and effective, more effective in the ground attack role, but an awesome beast. Im looking forwards to getting the 1st round out of the way and getting down to buisiness with the real contest.
P-47 for me....
I found a fantastic quote from a US pilot who's squadron changed over from Spitfires to P-47s. I'm busy with an assignment for work at the minute, will post it up later/tomorrow.
One Pilot's Initial Reaction To The P-47 Introduction
One day in January 1943 General Hunter, the Commander of the 8th Fighter Command, came to visit us at Debden. He said he had a 'surprise' for us we were soon to re-equip with the very latest American fighter, the P-47 Thunderbolt. As he spoke we heard an unusual engine note outside and one of the new fighters landed and taxied up beside one of our Spitfires. We went outside to look it over. It was huge: the wing tip of the P-47 came higher than the cockpit of the Spitfire. When we strapped into a Spitfire we felt snug and part of the aircraft; the Thunderbolt cockpit, on the other hand, was so large that we felt if we slipped off the Goddamned seat we would break a leg! We were horrified at the thought of going to war in such a machine: we had enough trouble with the Focke Wulfs 190's in our nimble Spitfire Vs; now this lumbering seven-ton monster seemed infinitely worse, a true 'air inferiority fighter'. Initial mock dog-fights between Thunderbolts and Spitfires seemed to confirm these feelings; we lost four Thunderbolt pilots in rapid succession, spinning in from low level while trying to match Spitfires in turns. In the end our headquarters issued an order banning mock dog fighting in Thunderbolts below 8,000 feet.
Gradually, however, we learnt how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude she was a 'hot ship' and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to 'mix it' with the enemy but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory--where the action was. So, reluctantly, we had to give up our beautiful little Spitfires and convert to the new juggernauts. The war was moving on and we had to move with it.
The change to the Thunderbolt might have been necessary militarily, but my heart remained with the Spitfire. Even now, thirty years after I flew them on operations, the mere sound or sight of a Spitfire brings me a deep feeling of nostalgia and many pleasant memories. She was such a gentle little aeroplane, without a trace of viciousness. She was a dream to handle in the air. I feel genuinely sorry for the modern fighter pilot who has never had the chance to get his hands on a Spitfire; he will never know what real flying was like.
...the MC.202 Folgore (Thunderbolt) ....
According to http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/macchi.htm Folgore = Lightning and Saeta = Thunderbolt.
Also I wanted to add a picture :D
http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/7499/mc202folgore0016hy.jpg
From http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/other/mc_202_folgore_001?full=1
I will vote later anyway!
Twitch1
10-25-2005, 03:47 PM
Vote - Thunderbolt, but damn that Folgore could climb well!
3-0 to the Thunderbolt as it stands, will give this a couple more days as there are a couple of people who have said they will vote later
festamus
10-25-2005, 04:18 PM
I give in.
I vote P-47.
It's an awesome piece of machinery. The things that make it less manoeuvrable make it more rugged, and better for shooting up stuff. I'm also heavily biased towards the thing on the grounds of looks... It looks AMAZING. Nice in the D version but even the earlier razorback ones looked the business.
The Folgore. I don't know. Maybe it's because it's lesser known... but I think also I have this attitude that it's all well and good being able to turn with the enemy... or to fly faster than the enemy... or to do X better than Z. But "best" is all about the emerging properties as a whole. The P-47 was no Mustang, but by god did it do the business. And that's what it's all about.
Topor
10-25-2005, 08:48 PM
P47
Sheer firepower & speed in the dive give it an enormous advantage.
Panzerknacker
10-27-2005, 12:05 PM
Is a quiet unequal comparative, The P-47 had the twice of engine power and 4 times the firepower of the MC-202 :?
festamus
10-27-2005, 01:35 PM
Unequal but entirely fair. Both are of a similar stage of the war.
Twitch1
10-27-2005, 05:47 PM
Horsepower and firepower aren't the only factors in a combat situation either.
Got an exam in the morning, next match up will be sorted tomorrow afternoon (UK Time)
festamus
10-27-2005, 06:26 PM
Horsepower and firepower aren't the only factors in a combat situation either.
And if they were, my money would be on the B-17G. One two... three... four... five six... seven eight.... nine... ten... eleven... twelve THIRTEEN 0.50cal machine guns, and one, two, three, FOUR 1200hp engines.
Now if horsepowe rand firepower were literally the only factors, that's gotta hurt. :)
Panzerknacker
11-02-2005, 10:41 PM
Horsepower and firepower aren't the only factors in a combat situation either.
.... :shock:
Especially if you flight in a P-47 that have enough of both.
Next contest will be done this afternoon folks - I haven't forgotten it, I've been very busy
1vs2
Name
Top Speed:
Service Ceiling:
Rate of Climb:
Range:
Armament:
Name
Top Speed:
Service Ceiling:
Rate of Climb:
Range:
Armament:
Ignore this, am leaving a template to save typing it out every time.
Ki-61 Hien (Japan) vs F2A Buffalo (USA)
Ki-61 Hien
http://military.sakura.ne.jp/ac/army/ki61.jpg
Top Speed: 367mph (590km/h)
Service Ceiling: 32,808ft (10,000m)
Rate of Climb: 2,343ft (714m) per minute
Range: 1,118 miles (1,800 km)
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon and 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs
Sometimes described as a cross between a P-51 and a Bf-109, the Ki-61 had the same destinctive nose shape as the German fighter due to the Kawasaki Ha-40 engine (a licence built DB601).
The Ki-61 first deployed operationally in 1943 in New Guinea. It quickly proved popular with the pilots, being very well armed and armoured for a Japanese fighter and proving to be a match with the US fighters it faced. The initial armament of four 12.7mm MGs proved unable to knock down the heavy American bombers though, and were soon replaced with two cannon and two machine guns. Small numbers were also built with either two 30mm or four 20mm cannon, although production was slowed down by the Allied bombing raids. The Ki-61 did prove to be one of the few Japanese fighters that had a chance of intercepting the B-29 bomber at the higher altitudes the American bomber flew at.
F2A Buffalo
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g10000/g16055.jpg
Top Speed: 311mph (500km)
Service Ceiling: 33,000ft (10,100m)
Rate of Climb: 3,068ft (935m) per minute
Range: 1000miles (1600km)
Armament: 1x 7.62mm (0.30in) MG and 1x 12.7mm (0.50in) MG. An optional 2x 12.7mm MGs could be added.
Deliveries of the F2A to the USN began in 1939, with nine aircraft being delivered to the USS Saratoga. Only a small number of the initial production run ever reached the US Navy however, with most of the first batch sold to Finland, who used them until 1944. The next batch of F2s had an improved engine as well as some other improvements. For its time, the Buffalo was a fast and manoueverable fighter, but was kept in service at the front line longer than they should have been. The only combat seen by American Buffalos was at the Battle of Midway, against overwhelming numbers of superior Japanese fighters. The Buffalo suffered heavy losses (almost 75%) and was soon withdrawn to training duties.
The Buffalo also served in large numbers with the British, Belgian and Dutch forces in the Far East, where they also suffered heavy losses.
The Buffalo's service with Finland was a completely different story - by the end of the Second World War the Finnish aircraft had shot down 496 Soviet aircraft for the loss of only 19 of their own - the best kills-to-loss ratio of any aircraft in the war.
seandelevan
11-04-2005, 06:05 PM
No contest here
Ki-61
Twitch1
11-04-2005, 06:51 PM
Hahahahahahaha! The Buffalo? Hein wins easily.
Topor
11-04-2005, 07:24 PM
Fighters from two different generations.
The Ki-61 gets my vote.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.