PDA

View Full Version : F4U/Corsair = Best plane of WW2?



danjama
10-06-2006, 05:37 AM
After reading many books recently about this amazing plane, i would like to hear some of your views on it and the statement that it was the best of WW2. If possible, please keep opinions based on real life accounts and information, rather that the in game version. I would like all marks to be discussed, rather than just the early or lates. Also, how do you think it would have performed in the ETO? That is something i enjoy toying around with in my imagination.

Thanks, i'll check in later after work.

p-11.cAce
10-06-2006, 05:55 AM
"The Best" is pretty subjective...many aircraft can be considered :the best" for their time, their task, their effectivness in a specific theater or battle...I get what you are aiming for though I think the subjectivity may be distracting. The Corsair certainly shows what a very highly developed piston engine fighter can be...and in many ways shows the ultimate development and implementation of the engineering, construction, and technology available at that time. In that I think the Corsair may be considered "the best".

WOLFMondo
10-06-2006, 06:21 AM
Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.

DomJScott
10-06-2006, 06:24 AM
Best is a right can of worms..

Narrow it down to 'Best WWII Naval fighter' yep almost certainly.

Best Fighter? Mmm Debatable, run's against the likes of late model spit's, Tempests, late model 190's etc.

Best Plane - I'd say that crown more likely sits on the 'head' of something like the Mossie. Flexible, fast, deadly and effective in a multitude of roles. A Plane that can probably carry the 'best night fighter' and 'best light/medium bomber' crowns with ease.

UnknownTarget
10-06-2006, 06:42 AM
I think the Corsair was universaly described as the best carrier-based plane of WWII, although not necessarily out of the whole war (a sentiment that I agree with http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-06-2006, 06:57 AM
It had an R2800 engine, was fast, tough, could carry a horde of ordnance, great visibility (unlike in-game) and some of the later models were true hotrods. Let's also not forget it belonged to the winning side.

...but for me, I like Jugs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


TB

R_Target
10-06-2006, 07:22 AM
I think F4U-4 was the best carrier fighter that got into combat. Much improved climb rate and speeds close to P-51 also make it a match for any land-based fighter. However, with late-war planes being so close in performance terms, I believe pilot skill, numbers, and situation determine more who wins a fight than raw figures.

WTE_Moleboy
10-06-2006, 07:40 AM
Interesting article on the subject. Some of the conclusions about manouverability do not sit to well with me but it is nevertheless a good read. http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ehistoryzone/F4U-4.html)

Xiolablu3
10-06-2006, 07:52 AM
One of the best US planes thats for sure.

Not a pure fighter, but can do so many roles well.

HayateAce
10-06-2006, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.

You dweebs seem to believe anything you type.

The F4U could out turn the 190. There was no maneuver the 190 could perform that the Corsair could not easily follow. Oh, and roll rate. No problemo.

Nice try revisionist fanbois.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Slickun
10-06-2006, 08:15 AM
-4 was a fine plane, probably the best all around of the war. It did, after all, operate from carriers.

But, the article above has a lot of errors vis a vis the -4 and the P-51.

Comparing the -4 to a 67" P-51D is hardly comparing contemporaries, but even so, the Mustang compares favorably with it, in the air to air realm.

Climb? At some (most) altitudes the -4 climbed better, but not all.

Acceleration? The article is in error. The -4 was not a good accelerating bird, as far as US planes go. The P-51D was. In "America's 100,000" the Author makes it plain that the -4 accelerated somewhat slower than the P-51D at 67", the worst performing Mustang.

The Mustang was a better diver. Period. Both in top end and acceleration. The Corsair was a mach .8 plasne, the Mustang .83.

Speed is a wash. The P-51D, after burning a bit of fuel, still went 442mph WITH wing racks.

Range is a wash. Both planes had very, very long legs.

Firepower favors the -4, it had more ammo, same 6 x 50 cal. Some versions of the -4 had cannons, these obviously had more firepower.

Toughness? The -4 was an amazingly tough ship, rivaling the legendary P-47.

Roll rate? Both good at high speeds.

Turning? Big argument here. Dean's "AHT" shows the Mustang able to pull 3 G's at lower speeds than the -4, because the spoiler strip installed on the wing to aid in low speed stability degraded the Corsairs turning ability.

Visibility? The Mustang's bubble canopy was better.

Ground pounding? As good as the Mustang was, the Corsair was truly outstanding.

Carrier ops? Even though the Mustang was proven capable, the Corsair was a true naval fighter.

Put the P-51 at 80", as the Iwo Mustangs were, and the type is even better below about 22,000 feet.

Xiolablu3
10-06-2006, 08:19 AM
Corsair beating hte FW190 in roll?

I find that very difficult to belive.

Bremspropeller
10-06-2006, 08:24 AM
F4U/Corsair = Best plane of WW2

Disagree 100%

Haigotron
10-06-2006, 08:24 AM
best plane = subjective, already said

wouldnt Hartmann agree that the 109 was the best plane, because it got him through...

or the any mustang pilot agree that the P51 was the best plane of WW2....

fighter_966
10-06-2006, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.

You dweebs seem to believe anything you type.

The F4U could out turn the 190. There was no maneuver the 190 could perform that the Corsair could not easily follow. Oh, and roll rate. No problemo.

Nice try revisionist fanbois.
....You have not tried purposeful stall gizmomovement with Fw190 in real life.. if your Corsair can do same Ill say Corsair is good
butnot best. Hayatessomething ..Spits Cant heh heh

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOLFMondo
10-06-2006, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.

You dweebs seem to believe anything you type.

The F4U could out turn the 190. There was no maneuver the 190 could perform that the Corsair could not easily follow. Oh, and roll rate. No problemo.

Nice try revisionist fanbois.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not revision, its opinion.

Now go back to watching the history channel.

Slickun
10-06-2006, 09:18 AM
Hartmann did not think the Me-109 was the best plane. In his last interview he stated that he and his mates knew the P-51's they were about to face were better planes...."newer and faster" than his mount.

The quizzed other LW pilots that had faced the Mustang on tips in fighting it.

Bremspropeller
10-06-2006, 09:29 AM
In addition, Hartmann never really cared for his planes' quality. He was more into quatity.

Haigotron
10-06-2006, 09:35 AM
Hartmann did not think the Me-109 was the best plane. In his last interview he stated that he and his mates knew the P-51's they were about to face were better planes...."newer and faster" than his mount.

The quizzed other LW pilots that had faced the Mustang on tips in fighting it.


I stand corrected


In addition, Hartmann never really cared for his planes' quality. He was more into quatity.

I stand doubly corrected, I meant to say its subjective...but gave bad examples...ok, who'se turn is it to strafe me?

3.JG51_BigBear
10-06-2006, 09:43 AM
It all depends on what the "best plane" is but I think the Corsair has a really good shot at it. Its performance was comperable to many ETO fighters, it handled well at high speeds and high altitudes, it had very good range, it could carry an impressive amount of ordinance, its climb rate was very impressive and on top of all that it could be operated off of a carrier giving it a flexibility in operations that no other fighter with its performance could match. The Corsair could act as both a fighter and a bomber aircraft and the plane offerred an amount of pilot protection only matched by the P-47.

If the "best plane" is a pure fighter, which I don't think it is, the Corsair doesn't have a chance. It'd probably have to go to Sptifire or La-7 or something like that.

fighter_966
10-06-2006, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Hartmann did not think the Me-109 was the best plane. In his last interview he stated that he and his mates knew the P-51's they were about to face were better planes...."newer and faster" than his mount.

The quizzed other LW pilots that had faced the Mustang on tips in fighting it. He said Newer and Faster but not better.. I think Hartmann
said that because he was a Gentleman and didnt want to start sound like nickpicker after all 352 planes..

Bewolf
10-06-2006, 10:00 AM
Hartman flew mainly the G6, so I do not wonder how he came to his statements. The P-51 is clearly superiour to the g6 and most other german planes until late 44, 45. Honor where honor is due.

About the Corsair. Very good plane, for a long time my personal favorite when it comes to WWII aircraft (nowadays it is the P-38 and the FW-190).

But to say the Corsair beats the Butcher Bird in every regard, that is so stupid (or nationalistic, which requires to be stupid in the first place) that it hurts.

Slickun
10-06-2006, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Hartmann did not think the Me-109 was the best plane. In his last interview he stated that he and his mates knew the P-51's they were about to face were better planes...."newer and faster" than his mount.

The quizzed other LW pilots that had faced the Mustang on tips in fighting it. He said Newer and Faster but not better.. I think Hartmann
said that because he was a Gentleman and didnt want to start sound like nickpicker after all 352 planes.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Did you read the interview? The context was that they knew the P-51 was better, and the reasons he listed was it was "newer and faster".

zugfuhrer
10-06-2006, 10:38 AM
Hail to the brave men who flew the widow-maker, and moan with the widows and the fatherless children in its wake.

It is sad if US Navy didn€t have any better a/c than the Corsair.

mandrill7
10-06-2006, 10:39 AM
Hmmmmmm, not an academic opinion, but.... when I write missions for the game which involve low or medium altitude flying against Jacks and Franks, there's only 1 US plane which is going to be competitive. And it's not the Mustang, Jug or Hellcat.

So the Hog has my vote for best US all-purpose plane anyway.

JG5_UnKle
10-06-2006, 10:47 AM
WooHoo I only just noticed I can ignore posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No more moronic trivial drivel from advertising execs - nice!

fordfan25
10-06-2006, 01:35 PM
overall i stongly beleave the -4 was the best all around fighter of the war. there were pleanty of planes that could do one or even two things better but no plane had as much a wide range of use's. it was realy good at just about everything. was a good dog fighter,was very fast,could take alot of battle damnge,was reliable,could carry more ground ordance than alot of dedacated tactical ground attack bombers, could be used on carriers, ect ect. and it was not just that it could do all these things but that it did them so well.

flakwagen
10-06-2006, 01:44 PM
I think I'd like to hear from a mechanic who has had the responsibility of maintaining both types before I make any 'best' judgements. They, after all, are the people who had to keep these beasties in the air.

Kurfurst__
10-06-2006, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Did you read the interview? The context was that they knew the P-51 was better, and the reasons he listed was it was "newer and faster".

This is all true when comparing to the G-6 Hartmann was flying for quite some time, as the EF planes were always receiving new stuff a bit later on. It doesn't hold true to the /AS types they were receiving parallel the USAAF was getting it's Mustangs.

Sergio_101
10-06-2006, 05:14 PM
Best plane of WWII?

B-29. No others come close.

Sergio

geetarman
10-06-2006, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.

In game, have you flown a Corsair vs. the best dogfighter the Germans had (the 109)? It's a cake walk. I don't care the altitude. The 190's might present a slightly larger problem tho. I'd love a Corsair on WC.

Badsight-
10-06-2006, 06:36 PM
its True !

"Fighter/Bomber" is the Corsairs catagory . & its up against the Axis FW-190 in this regard

FW-190 = better fighter

F4U = better Ground Pounder

in game i like the P-38 even more as a fighter bomber , but the real life P-38 was for experienced pilots

AKA_TAGERT
10-06-2006, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
After reading many books recently about this amazing plane, i would like to hear some of your views on it and the statement that it was the best of WW2. If possible, please keep opinions based on real life accounts and information, rather that the in game version. I would like all marks to be discussed, rather than just the early or lates. Also, how do you think it would have performed in the ETO? That is something i enjoy toying around with in my imagination.

Thanks, i'll check in later after work. Before I can tell you if the F4u was the BEST or not you have to tell me what BEST means. Once you define BEST it will be a simple mater to tell you if he F4u was the BEST.

Just try to rember that BEST is RELITVE to the user. What might be a good feature to one pilot may be a bad feature to another.. What might be a good feature in one battle front may be a bad feature in another battle front.. and so on and so on. So, the ball is in your court! You define what BEST is and Ill tell you if the F4u fits into your definition of BEST.

SAVVY?

leitmotiv
10-06-2006, 06:59 PM
Where the F4U-1 series fell down vs the top Western Europeans was in high altitude performance. No doubt it was an admirable fighter, but it had to undergo a long development process. It was supposed to have been the 400 mph carrier fighter of 1942. It was almost entirely a land-based fighter until the very end of 1944. My vote for best all-around piston is the T-bolt because it was hard to kill, fast, could fly high, and could carry a lot of bombs. The 47 could not operate off a carrier though!

AKA_TAGERT
10-06-2006, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The 47 could not operate off a carrier though! Well it could take off from one.. landing is another story

panther3485
10-06-2006, 09:28 PM
Best plane of WW2?

The broader you make the category, the harder it's going to be to decide which aircraft was the 'best'.

And if you don't give any hints as to your criteria, the hard becomes the impossible.

For example, judged by certain criteria the Douglas C-47 Skytrain/Dakota or even the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch could be seen as 'best'.

So how about narrowing it down? A LOT!

How about asking us what we think was the best carrier based combat plane of WW2? Or if we agree that the F4U was the best fighter/bomber in the PTO? Or something like that.

Much more reasonable, and you might actually have a chance of getting a meaningful consensus. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

fordfan25
10-06-2006, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.

In game, have you flown a Corsair vs. the best dogfighter the Germans had (the 109)? It's a cake walk. I don't care the altitude. The 190's might present a slightly larger problem tho. I'd love a Corsair on WC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>if you get beat in game by a f4u in a 109 dog fight you need help.

fordfan25
10-06-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
its True !

"Fighter/Bomber" is the Corsairs catagory . & its up against the Axis FW-190 in this regard

FW-190 = better fighter

F4U = better Ground Pounder

in game i like the P-38 even more as a fighter bomber , but the real life P-38 was for experienced pilots f4u was a better dog fighter id bet

BigKahuna_GS
10-07-2006, 12:19 AM
Wolf--Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________
http://www.airventure.de/airpower05/airpower05_corsair_7967.jpg

Have you been talking to badsight ?
he thought the samething and he was very wrong too.
Sorry guys the Corsair is not the Navy's version of Thunderbolt. The Corsair is more nimble and performs very well at low to mid altitudes, but they do share airframe and powerplant ruggedness.
http://www.delaflor.com/images/technical/corsairs1.jpg

The Hellcat was known as a good turning aircraft with decent wingloading at combat weight about 35lbsft. The Corsair turned a little worse than the Hellcat and had 38lbsft for wingloading. Both aircraft were known to out turn the P51 & P47 below 20,000ft. The Corsair was strong from sea level to 22,000ft after that high altitude was not it's forte until the F4U-4 came along. Both the P51 & P47 were stronger at high alt. The Corsair was strong the deck and very fast it would of been able to more than hold it's own.

P-51B and F4U-1 Comparison Report

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id95.htm

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/23760700.jpg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/23d60700.jpg
Both the Corsair & Hellcat are under performing in take off power vs fuel load/bomb load weight whether it be a static carrier or a moving carrier steaming into the wind. The take off distance in ( ) with "emergency take off power" of 2800rpm is a much shorter take off distance--See pg2 Loading Condition #7 & #8 -Fully loaded Corsair (gas & ammo) with (2) 1000lb bombs, gross weight14,170lbs take off distance 995ft "calm" -no wind same as static carrier. A gross weight of 14,415lbs could take off in 1,060ft calm no wind. Take off with a 25kn wind =509ft. (moving carrier) thats half the take off distance.

Notice wing loading- 38.8lbs, stall speed power off --87.5mph, combat configurations were always with pylons & fuse unless in the "Clean Condition" The Corsair sea level V-max speed (in IL2 -10mph too slow) "Clean Condition" V-max sea level speed 366mph, V-max 417mph/20,000ft Combat Power pg.2 The last page of the report details Aircraft armor/protection from battle damage.
F4U-1D Standard Aircraft Characteristics US Navy
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg

Energy Management: Picking The Right Airplane For The Job
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html
http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011a_2.jpg
In the case of the F4U versus the P-51, its role has changed. Examination of the overlay shown in Fig8 reveals that the F4U is now the angles fighter, but the advantage is only around 1dps, not enough to make this an easy fight by any means. However, the P-51 doesn€t have enough superiority at high speed to realize a significant energy advantage, so while the P-51 is the energy fighter in this case, the distinction is less clear. In this case, the P-51 can€t allow the fight to get slow, but will also have difficulty employing energy tactics against the F4U. It is possible in situations like this, that other factors relating to roll rate, climb rate, stall characteristics, initial energy advantage, weapons effectiveness, or perhaps some difference in pilot skill, are more likely to have a greater influence on the outcome than pure maneuverability. Many pilots would approach a fight like this as if it were a similar aircraft engagement. However, if I were flying the P-51 against the F4U, I would be nervous of the combination of higher turn rate, smaller radius, and the mighty cannons of the 1C model, and make good use of that modest extra speed.
http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_1.jpg
http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_2.jpg
http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_011b_5.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Corsair-f4u-4-navy.jpg
http://www.us-aircraft.com/walk/F4U4/f4u4a.jpg
The F4U-4 would be a contender for beat all around aircraft of WW2. It certainly had it all:
Speed-- 384mph at sea level, 464mph at altitude
Climb-about 5000fpm
Rugged airframe
P&W R-2800 air cooled engine around 2600bhp
Bomb Load--over 4,000lbs
Carrier or Land based
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Arkenbout/1909L.jpg
http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/f4u_ps.jpg

I dont think they ever raced P47s at Reno, if they did it wasnt for long.
The Corsiar was pretty dam fast down low and a dominet racer for a long time.
http://www.midwaysailor2.com/edenprairie3/f2g1corsair-030b.jpg
http://www.midwaysailor2.com/edenprairie3/f2g1corsair-021b.jpg

panther3485
10-07-2006, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
"The F4U-4 would be a contender for best all around aircraft of WW2."

Well, IIRC, the -4 arrived very late in the conflict; much too late to have a significant influence on the war IMHO. Also, I would insert the word 'combat' in that sentence, between 'around' and 'aircraft'.

Otherwise though, an extremely well written and presented post. You've obviously done your homework and you have presented an excellent case for the F4U. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3485

Edit: Just checked. F4U-4 first flown 20 September '44, Accepted by US Navy during October '44, used first by US Marines and entered combat in April 1945. So it was actively involved for about the last 5 months, I guess! Outstanding plane but -4 way too late to be a deciding factor, IMHO. ('F4U Corsair In Action', by Jim Sullivan, Tom Tullis, Don Greer & Joe Sewell, Squadron/Signal Publications)

Badsight-
10-07-2006, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Have you been talking to badsight ?
he thought the samething and he was very wrong too. lol
face it , a crash landed non-boost used jabo A5 was faster than the Corsair it was tested against , & had a better RoC , & had a better roll rate

as well as being better armed

being wrong with kahuna more & more is appearing like being a non-troll USA-RAH-RAH-RAH freak :-)

panther3485
10-07-2006, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Have you been talking to badsight ?
he thought the samething and he was very wrong too. lol
face it , a crash landed non-boost used jabo A5 was faster than the Corsair it was tested against , & had a better RoC , & had a better roll rate

as well as being better armed

being wrong with kahuna more & more is appearing like being a non-troll USA-RAH-RAH-RAH freak :-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not wanting to be a party-pooper here, Badsight, but according to a quick perusal in my books, the slowest climbing variant of the F4U had a better rate of climb than the fastest climbing variant of the Fw 190A. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

And in the case of the F4U-4 if not the others, it appears to have had a higher ceiling to boot.

BigKahuna_GS
10-07-2006, 01:45 AM
lol badsight--face it , a crash landed non-boost used jabo A5 was faster than the Corsair it was tested against , & had a better RoC , & had a better roll rate as well as being better armed being wrong with kahuna more & more is appearing like being a non-troll USA-RAH-RAH-RAH freak :-)


badsight---that is a good name for you because it is obvious you cant read.

First of all you were calling for the Corsair to be nuetered in turn rate and handeling.
You wanted another allied flying brick. All this from your "expert opinon" without any documents to
back up your bogus claims. And yet here you are again with your same old load of crapola.
dude have you no shame ?

Also if you ever get your eyes fixed and you attention span lasts greater than 30 seconds there was no refrence to
the F6F & F4U vs 190 flight test in my post. Since it has been posted before many times but your selective memory
wont allow you to comprehend past the barney stage when it comes to allied aircraft, the last page stated that
the Corsair was flight tested with the wrong propeller and on auto-lean not auto-rich. The new prop and auto-rich
fuel mixture would have significantly increased performance results. (Last page of the report)

---

Sergio_101
10-07-2006, 03:14 AM
Well, Kahuna, your close to the truth.
badsight just says "NO".
Facts mean as much to him as to Kurfie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

This species of troll seems common to all
avaitaion message boards. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
If it's German, it's God like. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

If it's Allied or American, just say NO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

sergio

BaronUnderpants
10-07-2006, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Well, Kahuna, your close to the truth.
badsight just says "NO".
Facts mean as much to him as to Kurfie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

This species of troll seems common to all
avaitaion message boards. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
If it's German, it's God like. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

If it's Allied or American, just say NO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

sergio


Sounds to me like it works like that both ways here, wouldnt u say?

To me the " over all best fighter of WWII " translates into: "pretty good at most things...but not best at anything"

In a DF i rather have the ac with faster rollrate and heavier armerment than the ac that can carry a sh** load of bombs and land on large boats. But thats just me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


everyone knows the Corsair is a dam good plane, but taking it from "dam good" to the "BEST" is futile and just not duable..... to many varibles.

Frequent_Flyer
10-07-2006, 07:57 AM
In a DF i rather have the ac with faster rollrate and heavier armerment than the ac that can carry a sh** load of bombs and land on large boats. But thats just me



So your vote goes to the 4 X 20mm armed Corsair. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You forgot to mention the better climb rate.Plus better high altitude performance. What exactly does the FW-190 do better?

Aaron_GT
10-07-2006, 08:13 AM
Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.

The F4U, in any given year, tended to be a bit faster than the Axis types at sea level, so in an F4U you should have the opportunity to disengage from the fight if you haven't got too slow (the acceleration is not great). Being able to get up to altitude and rejoin at an advantage is going to depend on what you are fighting as the climb rate of the last 109s is extremely good so a 109K4 seeing you disengage and then grab height should be able to grab height faster than the F4U.

Aaron_GT
10-07-2006, 08:33 AM
You forgot to mention the better climb rate. Plus better high altitude performance. What exactly does the FW-190 do better?


It depends on which versions of the 190 and F4U you are comparing and at what date.

If you are looking at the F4U-1 versus the Fw190A-4 and A-8 then the F4U does better in terms of climb and speed, so in 1943 the F4U wins.

If you go to mid 1944 you have the D9 and A9. For the D9 you have almost identical speed at altitude and climb to the F4U-1. Armament is also very comparable.

Forward to early 1945 and you have a match up with the D9 and F4U-4, and here the -4 wins.

BigKahuna_GS
10-07-2006, 10:37 AM
BaronUnderpants -In a DF i rather have the ac with faster rollrate and heavier armerment than the ac that can carry a sh** load of bombs and land on large boats. But thats just me


Your lack of vision on the future of air power is the same as the germans and they lost WW2. Having an aircraft that can carry a **** load of bombs and can land on a large boat means that you can project air power all over the world. That means in places your enemy cannot. By having a fighter that is at least as good as the enemy's front line defensive fighter but is also able to carry a **** loads of ordance is a force multiplier. That means your strike force has now doubled because of the capabilities of the fleet fighter force. This is much like todays Carrier Task Forces.

There are defensive fighters and there are fighters that are strike/fighters, they carry the war to the enemy and help win the war.

If you look at the specs of the Corsiar over it's WW2 career it was at least as good as the 190 and in many reguards better. The F4U-4 was clearly superior to the best 190 series the D-9s. So you have a better fighter and a better fighter bomber plus an aircraft that could take off and land on large boats all over the world--force projection.

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/23d60700.jpg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/24360700.jpg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/1098f6f0.gif
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/10f8f6f0.gif

BaronUnderpants
10-07-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BaronUnderpants -In a DF i rather have the ac with faster rollrate and heavier armerment than the ac that can carry a sh** load of bombs and land on large boats. But thats just me


Your lack of vision on the future of air power is the same as the germans and they lost WW2. Having an aircraft that can carry a **** load of bombs and can land on a large boat means that you can project air power all over the world. That means in places your enemy cannot. By having a fighter that is at least as good as the enemy's front line defensive fighter but is also able to carry a **** loads of ordance is a force multiplier. That means your strike force has now doubled because of the capabilities of the fleet fighter force. This is much like todays Carrier Task Forces.

There are defensive fighters and there are fighters that are strike/fighters, they carry the war to the enemy and help win the war.

If you look at the specs of the Corsiar over it's WW2 career it was at least as good as the 190 and in many reguards better. The F4U-4 was clearly superior to the best 190 series the D-9s. So you have a better fighter and a better fighter bomber plus an aircraft that could take off and land on large boats all over the world--force projection.

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/23d60700.jpg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/24360700.jpg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/1098f6f0.gif
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/10f8f6f0.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I realy dont get it........this is the first time anyone at all suddenly compares the Corsair to all FW` all the way up to D9 and claimes its superior?

Am i missing something or did P-51 joks give up trying to turn the Mustang into the greatest fighter ever and need a new pet?

Seriously, its the first time iv heard of it and im not trying to flame...i just think the "best fighter of WWII/ever" is a topic belonging on Discovery channel, not here because the whole consept is idiotic.

Theese forums cant even agree on wich fighter is the best of P-51, Fw 190, Bf 109, Spit...and thoose actually faught against eachother. Telling me that a perticular ac is the best souly based on numbers doesnt convince me, sry.

Common sence tells me that thoose gull wings/wight/sice has to put a dent somewhere in its performance compared to La, Fw, Spit, P-51, Bf, P-47.

Come to think of it....i would be this childish regardless of wich ac claims to be the best, Spit, La, Bf...doesnt matter, the concept just pushes my buttons. Sry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Badsight-
10-07-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
badsight---that is a good name for you because it is obvious you cant read.

First of all you were calling for the Corsair to be nuetered in turn rate and handeling.
You wanted another allied flying brick. All this from your "expert opinon" without any documents to
back up your bogus claims. And yet here you are again with your same old load of crapola.
dude have you no shame ? coming from you this would be funny

your selective memory would be funny if it wasnt a lie , like how you dont see any german plane criticsim - even tho the manuel prop difference & climb rate well well discussed years in advance of what you remember

ignoring the joke v3.0 Corsair i dont think youll find me saying anything about the it except for its bogus low overheat tolerance

but thats the way it is with biased players like Kahuna - preconceptions work just fine

WOLFMondo
10-07-2006, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

Have you been talking to badsight ?
he thought the samething and he was very wrong too.

I dont' need badsight to make my opinions for mehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gimme an FW190 A6 or A8 over an F4U 1D any day. Vs a Dora at low altitude it just wouldn't be fair. The only Focke to compare the -4 with is the Ta152C V6...same time frame.

There just isn't a best plane of WW2, most versatile is a different question, but that plane was probably made of wood.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
10-07-2006, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
"There just isn't a best plane of WW2...."

Rightamundo, WOLFMondo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HerrGraf
10-07-2006, 10:27 PM
Gentlemen, lets be calm and cease with the name calling. We will leave that for the younger members of the forum.

There is no best plane,because what is best for one person is not the best for the next. Given planes were superior to others at different times. This does not mean "best". What are the mission perameters? What type of mission? What are the pilots desired attributes for his favorite aircraft?

Keep in mind that Eric Hartman was doing more with ME109Gs in 1945 than anyone else was with any other plane! What is best for one is not for another.

LStarosta
10-07-2006, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by HerrGraf:
Gentlemen, lets be calm and cease with the name calling. We will leave that for the younger members of the forum.

Thank you.



******bags. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Abbuzze
10-08-2006, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Have you been talking to badsight ?
he thought the samething and he was very wrong too. lol
face it , a crash landed non-boost used jabo A5 was faster than the Corsair it was tested against , & had a better RoC , & had a better roll rate

as well as being better armed

being wrong with kahuna more & more is appearing like being a non-troll USA-RAH-RAH-RAH freak :-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And we should not forget the NACA for example were even not able to set the ailerons correct on a "friendly" plane like the spitfire - so this comparsions test are more than doubtfull.
This will be even more a problem with an enemy plane. Except enginesetting and experiances.

For the test P51 vs Corsair. Take a short look at the subscription... USN - Such test are usually not made to prove inferiortiy of the "own" plane - If I remeber correct there is a rivalry between USAAF and USN. I would say such a report is allways a bit biased http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
10-08-2006, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Well, Kahuna, your close to the truth.
badsight just says "NO".
Facts mean as much to him as to Kurfie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

This species of troll seems common to all
avaitaion message boards. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
If it's German, it's God like. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

If it's Allied or American, just say NO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

sergio


Well you are doing a pretty good job as a troll yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Vipez-
10-08-2006, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Well, Kahuna, your close to the truth.
badsight just says "NO".
Facts mean as much to him as to Kurfie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

This species of troll seems common to all
avaitaion message boards. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
If it's German, it's God like. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

If it's Allied or American, just say NO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

sergio


Well you are doing a pretty good job as a troll yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JtD
10-08-2006, 05:34 AM
F4U/Corsair performance in 1939-1941 is just aweful. I'd take the CR.42 over it any day.

carguy_
10-08-2006, 06:22 AM
I do not understand why are ppl comparing the Corsair with German fighters since it never had a chance to prove itself in European combat conditions.Combat conditions change the whole picture.

Maybe for ETO the Corsair would be better against slow Japanese fighters but in Europe Spitfire IX/IVX would have been my pick everytime.


Yes,he Corsair is very tough just like the P38 and P47.

Although the Maschinenkanone108 disagrees... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Viper2005_
10-08-2006, 06:22 AM
The Corsair may well have been the best aeroplane in the Pacific theatre, but overall the Spitfire wins any "best aeroplane of WWII" contest hands down. It flew and fought almost everywhere, and was in production as a front line fighter from before the start of the war until after its end.

It also looks much nicer than the Corsair, and to cap it all off it sounds better too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
10-08-2006, 12:28 PM
but overall the Spitfire wins any "best aeroplane of WWII" contest hands down. It flew and fought almost everywhere, and was in production as a front line fighter from before the start of the war until after its end.

That's longevity and ubiquity rather than being 'best'.

To be honest, though, you have to qualify best by theatre, time period, and mission profile. (And there is no particular reason why the F4U couldn't have been used more in Europe than it was, it just wasn't required as much as it was in the Pacific).

For example the Spitfire (in the form of the Seafire) was not a great carrier aircraft, hence the use by the FAAF of the F4F, F6F, F4U. The Spitfire, whilst it did lots of fighter bomber work, was not a patch on the F4U in the fighter bomber role. But the Spitfire was easier to fly, flew in versions at very high altitude, and was available in 1940 for important battles. Overall, though, I'd say that the F4U, due to its load carrying capability (including radar) was more versatile than the Spitfire.

SkyChimp
10-08-2006, 01:49 PM
face it , a crash landed non-boost used jabo A5 was faster than the Corsair it was tested against , & had a better RoC , & had a better roll rate



jeez, this again.

It wasn't crash-landed. It was captured intact at an airfield. And it was test at the designated 1.42 ata.

Sergio_101
10-08-2006, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">face it , a crash landed non-boost used jabo A5 was faster than the Corsair it was tested against , & had a better RoC , & had a better roll rate



jeez, this again.

It wasn't crash-landed. It was captured intact at an airfield. And it was test at the designated 1.42 ata. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why waste perfectly good propaganda? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sergio

Fork-N-spoon
10-09-2006, 12:52 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/choppercorsair.jpg

WOODY01
10-09-2006, 04:08 AM
I certinly wouldnt argue with 'Chopper' Reid on this, but even worse! they also had Kiwis flying them!

I was lucky enough at easter this year to be walking alone across a paddock, all alone except for rabbit holes and a couple of Popler trees, then from my deep left this whisling sound erupted into the most fantastic sound of a F4 U1 going past at horendous speed Ill EVER see and hear. I was at Wanaka, New Zealand, Ill never forget the sound or the sight, or the way it left the P40's escorting standing still when Keith Skilling 'wanted to go'. I really coundnt belive how quiet she was, I know now why the Japenese called her 'Wispering death'.

Best ever? Depends on whos flying her. keith Skilling at the controlls? Absoultly!

mynameisroland
10-09-2006, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by WOODY01:
I certinly wouldnt argue with 'Chopper' Reid on this, but even worse! they also had Kiwis flying them!

I was lucky enough at easter this year to be walking alone across a paddock, all alone except for rabbit holes and a couple of Popler trees, then from my deep left this whisling sound erupted into the most fantastic sound of a F4 U1 going past at horendous speed Ill EVER see and hear. I was at Wanaka, New Zealand, Ill never forget the sound or the sight, or the way it left the P40's escorting standing still when Keith Skilling 'wanted to go'. I really coundnt belive how quiet she was, I know now why the Japenese called her 'Wispering death'.

Best ever? Depends on whos flying her. keith Skilling at the controlls? Absoultly!

The Japanese (is it non pc to say Japs ? ) used to call the Beaufighter 'Whispering death' did they call the Corsair it too?

My take on this whole topic is that if you are from the USA you will have a hard time even considering that anything other than the P47, P38, P51, F4U, Hellcat ...(insert any US built plane here) may have been better than something built in the land of the free.

Best dogfighter - Bearcat
Best Twin - P38
Best all round - Mustang
Best high alt - P47
Best 4 engined heavy - B17/B29
Best night fighter - P61
Best carrier - Hellcat

From this list I would change 4 or 5 of them and no matter which country the plane I chose comes from either British, German or Russian I am immediately accused of spamming, being anti US or even worse being a Luftwhiner!

There is no point getting drawn in to an argument with any of these people, we know who they are. Just let them live out their cowboy boots wearing, Stetson hat donning John Wayne fantasies and shoot beer cans in their back yards with their army surplus .50 calz

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 06:28 AM
Best dogfighter - Bearcat or Yak-3
Best carrier - Bearcat
Best Twin - P82 Twin Mustang
Best night fighter - P-82 Twin Mustang
Best all round - F4U-4 Corsair
Best high alt - P47N
Best 4 engined heavy - B29/TU-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Best Jet.......P-80
Best twin engined bomber.Douglas A-26
Best escort fighter...P-51H
Best pure interceptor..Spit XIV
.
.
.
Best Axis
Heavy Bomber.....none
Best high alt...Ta-152
Best all round..Fw-190
Best carrier....A6M-5
Best dogfighter.A6M-5
Best night fighter.He-219
Best twin engined fighter.He-219
Best Jet.......Me-262
Best twin engined bomber.Ju-88
Best escort fighter...A6M-5
Best pure interceptor..Bf-109K-4


Very hard to come away with a clear winner.
But by far the most modern and influential plane
listed is the B-29.

P-80 and Me-262 also are right there in many design ideas.

The others all are dead ends.

MEGILE
10-09-2006, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.

You dweebs seem to believe anything you type.

The F4U could out turn the 190. There was no maneuver the 190 could perform that the Corsair could not easily follow. Oh, and roll rate. No problemo.

Nice try revisionist fanbois.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO, Mondo you just got b1tch slapped

mynameisroland
10-09-2006, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Best dogfighter - Bearcat or Yak-3
Best carrier - Bearcat
Best Twin - P82 Twin Mustang
Best night fighter - P-82 Twin Mustang
Best all round - F4U-4 Corsair
Best high alt - P47N
Best 4 engined heavy - B29/TU-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Best Jet.......P-80
Best twin engined bomber.Douglas A-26
Best escort fighter...P-51H
Best pure interceptor..Spit XIV
.
.
.
Best Axis
Heavy Bomber.....none
Best high alt...Ta-152
Best all round..Fw-190
Best carrier....A6M-5
Best dogfighter.A6M-5
Best night fighter.He-219
Best twin engined fighter.He-219
Best Jet.......Me-262
Best twin engined bomber.Ju-88
Best escort fighter...A6M-5
Best pure interceptor..Bf-109K-4


Very hard to come away with a clear winner.
But by far the most modern and influential plane
listed is the B-29.

P-80 and Me-262 also are right there in many design ideas.

The others all are dead ends.

See,the problem with your list Sergio is its too much based on Reno than WW2.

Bearcat saw no WW2 service
P82 saw no WW2 service
How many night kills did the P82 get compared to Mosquito?
The Hawker Seafury was at least equal if not superior to the F4U4 and the Bearcat as a post WW2 carrier fighter.
A26 as best twin engined - HELLO! Mosquito

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Best dogfighter - Bearcat or Yak-3
Best carrier - Bearcat
Best Twin - P82 Twin Mustang
Best night fighter - P-82 Twin Mustang
Best all round - F4U-4 Corsair
Best high alt - P47N
Best 4 engined heavy - B29/TU-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Best Jet.......P-80
Best twin engined bomber.Douglas A-26
Best escort fighter...P-51H
Best pure interceptor..Spit XIV
.
.
.
Best Axis
Heavy Bomber.....none
Best high alt...Ta-152
Best all round..Fw-190
Best carrier....A6M-5
Best dogfighter.A6M-5
Best night fighter.He-219
Best twin engined fighter.He-219
Best Jet.......Me-262
Best twin engined bomber.Ju-88
Best escort fighter...A6M-5
Best pure interceptor..Bf-109K-4


Very hard to come away with a clear winner.
But by far the most modern and influential plane
listed is the B-29.

P-80 and Me-262 also are right there in many design ideas.

The others all are dead ends.

See,the problem with your list Sergio is its too much based on Reno than WW2.

Bearcat saw no WW2 service
P82 saw no WW2 service
How many night kills did the P82 get compared to Mosquito?
The Hawker Seafury was at least equal if not superior to the F4U4 and the Bearcat as a post WW2 carrier fighter.
A26 as best twin engined - HELLO! Mosquito </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I find arguing with an idiot like you, Roland, is pointless.
But I will say that best means best, you included post war designs, so did I.

Note that if RENO was a reason that Seafurys
would be included and P-82s would not.
Mossies were ok, but there were much better.

Sergio

WOLFMondo
10-09-2006, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Best dogfighter - Bearcat or Yak-3
Best carrier - Bearcat
Best Twin - P82 Twin Mustang
Best night fighter - P-82 Twin Mustang
Best all round - F4U-4 Corsair
Best high alt - P47N
Best 4 engined heavy - B29/TU-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Best Jet.......P-80
Best twin engined bomber.Douglas A-26
Best escort fighter...P-51H
Best pure interceptor..Spit XIV
.
.
.
Best Axis
Heavy Bomber.....none
Best high alt...Ta-152
Best all round..Fw-190
Best carrier....A6M-5
Best dogfighter.A6M-5
Best night fighter.He-219
Best twin engined fighter.He-219
Best Jet.......Me-262
Best twin engined bomber.Ju-88
Best escort fighter...A6M-5
Best pure interceptor..Bf-109K-4


Very hard to come away with a clear winner.
But by far the most modern and influential plane
listed is the B-29.

P-80 and Me-262 also are right there in many design ideas.

The others all are dead ends.

What happened to WW2? Hardly any of those planes were in WW2.

Serdio logic best WW2 fighter = F15.

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 07:24 AM
Ok, revised list. Had to make a significant impact on the war effort.

Best dogfighter - F6F-5 Hellcat or Yak-3
Best carrier - F6F-5 hellcat
Best Twin - P38
Best night fighter - P61
Best all round - F4U-1C Corsair
Best high alt - P47D
Best 4 engined heavy - B29/TU-4 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Best Jet.......none
Best twin engined bomber.Douglas A-26
Best escort fighter...P-51D/K
Best pure interceptor..Spit XIV
.
.
.
Best Axis
Heavy Bomber.....none
Best high alt...Bf-109G
Best all round..Fw-190
Best carrier....A6M-5
Best dogfighter.A6M-5
Best night fighter.He-219
Best twin engined fighter.He-219
Best Jet.......Me-262
Best twin engined bomber.Ju-88
Best escort fighter...A6M-5
Best pure interceptor..Bf-109G


Very hard to come away with a clear winner.
But by far the most modern and influential plane
listed is the B-29.

Many excellent designs are not noted such as Halifax, Lancaster
Mosquito, He-111, La-5/9.

To many catagories to note everything.

Note the RENO influence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Sergio

carguy_
10-09-2006, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
I find arguing with an idiot like you, Roland, is pointless.

Sergio


ban...?

KIMURA
10-09-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
I find arguing with an idiot like you, Roland, is pointless.
But I will say that best means best, you included post war designs, so did I.
Sergio

seems that the end of the argument chain is reached when the only option is calling another an idiot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
I find arguing with an idiot like you, Roland, is pointless.
But I will say that best means best, you included post war designs, so did I.
Sergio

seems that the end of the argument chain is reached when the only option is calling another an idiot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What may be misconstrued as insult is meerly
a statement in FACT. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sergio

WOLFMondo
10-09-2006, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Ok, revised list. Had to make a significant impact on the war effort.

Best night fighter - P61

Sergio

That plane no impact at all, other than on a budget. Best night fighter is the Mosquito.

If your talking significant impact look to the B17, Lancaster, Spitfire IX, razorback P47's, Beaufighter, Typhoon, Swordfish, Hurricane, P40, Catalina, Sunderland. Not planes like the P61!

mynameisroland
10-09-2006, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
I find arguing with an idiot like you, Roland, is pointless.
But I will say that best means best, you included post war designs, so did I.
Sergio

seems that the end of the argument chain is reached when the only option is calling another an idiot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What may be misconstrued as insult is meerly
a statement in FACT. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROLF the pots calling the kettle black!

Sergio is one of the few people I know who views Reno as a guide as to why the US won WW2.
As for the Tu4 having a significant impact on WW2 - pull the other one better get some more GI Joe annuals to swat up on your History mate.

mynameisroland
10-09-2006, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Ok, revised list. Had to make a significant impact on the war effort.

Best night fighter - P61

Sergio

That plane no impact at all, other than on a budget. Best night fighter is the Mosquito.

If your talking significant impact look to the B17, Lancaster, Spitfire IX, razorback P47's, Beaufighter, Typhoon, Swordfish, Hurricane, P40, Catalina, Sunderland. Not planes like the P61! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said Mondo, if it came from the good ole USA it HAD to be better than the Mosquito.This is the level of argument for a lot of these guys esp. Sergio.

Watch out or he'll spit out his dummy again ... this time at you!

msalama
10-09-2006, 08:00 AM
B44444h!!! t3h Stürm0V1k w0N T3h w4r. B süre.

HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
10-09-2006, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

Note the RENO influence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Sergio

Easy, I just do a search for any topic you are involved in and spot the ****** comments a mile away.

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 08:02 AM
Ok, the single most significant combat plane of WWII was.....Drum roll please........Bf-109 series.

Does not mean it was the best.

Best criteria would have to have been in front line service before the end of all hostilities.

best seems not to have needed to have fired a shot in anger.

In this crowd if you don't post their favorite fanboy plane you get jumped on quickly.

Sergio

KIMURA
10-09-2006, 08:04 AM
I ask myself who someone can list an a/c as "best" which didnt shoot a single round in combat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Brain32
10-09-2006, 08:04 AM
Corsair = "Ensign Eliminator"

Nice job, please try again.

mynameisroland
10-09-2006, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

Not enough mention of British planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sergio

I wonder why that is? Is it because you havent seen any at Reno?

Or is it that someone as obviously well read as you has yet to read about the exploits of aircraft like the Mosquito, the Lancaster and Halifax or perhaps that little know plane the Spitfire.

As for Hellcat being a better DOGFIGHTER than the Spitfire IX ....

I want whatever your on Mr Stars and Stripes.

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 08:10 AM
As for Hellcat being a better DOGFIGHTER than the Spitfire IX ....

Your compadres at Boscombe Down said so.

Read, don't just react. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Sergio

KIMURA
10-09-2006, 08:28 AM
I'm really in doubt the F6F-3/5 would had that success in ETO than the Spit IX had. There's only one encounter of HCats and German fighters in ETO. And the aftermath of that was not convincing for the Cat.

mynameisroland
10-09-2006, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
I'm really in doubt the F6F-3/5 would had that success in ETO than the Spit IX had. There's only one encounter of HCats and German fighters in ETO. And the aftermath of that was not convincing for the Cat.

The SpitIX has a higher HP/weight ratio, climbed better, was faster, turned tighter, was better at altitude and had better firepower. None of these attributes matter in a dogfighter.

JtD
10-09-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
I find arguing with an idiot like you, Roland, is pointless.

Sergio


ban...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm all for it. Can't get much more offensive, can it?

danjama
10-09-2006, 09:33 AM
thanks to all who posted in this thread, sorry i took so long to get back to it been very busy!

Theres definately some interesting things being said, but also some BS going on.

As the Discovery channel doesnt define best i didnt think i had to either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Well, i would say that the Corsair really was a power horse. A beast of a plane, with monster characteristics in the air. It beat the hell out of most Jap fighters in its early stages and thats that. However, for me, the interesting part is speculating how it would of done in Europe.

Let's imagine it in the Bomber escort role circa 1943-44. Many 1943 bombing raids took place at 20-28,000ft - the heart of the Corsairs effective altitude range. In my opinion it would of pwned the 109's, many of which were early variants that struggled at high altitude. As for FW's, well, the Corsairs clearly out performed them in most areas. Put the Corsairs in an advantageous position such as escorting 47's would of been, and they would really unleash hell on those 190's.

We already know what an effective ground pounder the F4u was, so why was it never used in this role in Europe, during the D-day period? Could it not have been operated from carriers off the coast of France and then pushed onto land as the armies took territory? Or was it seen that the Typh and later Tempests could fulfill this role sufficiently? And of course there was the magnificent Mossie's and Heavies taking care of the ground support role, so maybe the Corsair just wasn't necessary at the time and never would be. It's interesting to contemplate anyway.

Aaron_GT
10-09-2006, 10:53 AM
Discounting things that didn't see WW2
service..

Allied:

Best dogfighter -Spitfire or Yak-3
Best carrier - F4U
Best Twin - Mosquito
Best night fighter - Mosquito NF30,P61 (although the A was a bit slow)
Best all round - F4U-4 Corsair
Best high alt - P47M
Best 4 engined heavy - B29
Best Jet.......Meteor
Best twin engined bomber.Mosquito (1942-4), Douglas A-26 (1945)
Best escort fighter...P-51D
Best pure interceptor..Spit XIV[/quote]

Aaron_GT
10-09-2006, 10:54 AM
Not enough mention of British planes. Veryhappy

Sergio



I wonder why that is? Is it because you havent seen any at Reno?


At the latest Reno 3 of the 4 winners in one of the races (reported in the latest Aeroplane) were Sea Furies!

Aaron_GT
10-09-2006, 10:56 AM
Best night fighter - P61

Sergio



That plane no impact at all, other than on a budget. Best night fighter is the Mosquito.


True. The P61 (in the C version) had great potential as a nightfighter, but in reality the P61 was mostly used as a night intruder or tactical night bomber. (which it was very good at).

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 12:04 PM
6 out of 7 finishers in the Gold race at RENO 2006
were Seafurys powered by US engines.
Seafurys took 1,2 and 4,5,6 and 7 places.

Third went to a highly modified Yak-11 powered by a "C" series P&W R-2800.

Sergio

DIRTY-MAC
10-09-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
6 out of 7 finishers in the Gold race at RENO 2006
were Seafurys powered by US engines.
Seafurys took 1,2 and 4,5,6 and 7 places.

Third went to a highly modified Yak-11 powered by a "C" series P&W R-2800.

Sergio

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s.

He He your really flagging it aren´t you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
and with that avatar text
no one is gonna take you seriusly here
you will just come across as pretty childish
and a troll!
and calling someone an !d!ot doesn´t make you less an "?????"

DomJScott
10-09-2006, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Mossies were ok, but there were much better.

Sergio
ROFLMAO.. You must be KIDDING.. the Mossie was THE BEST light/Medium bomber of WWII, probably the best nightfighter, the best Pinpoint bomber ( pathfinders used mainly Mossies in the end, some Lanc's but the Mossies where the best).

It was an awsome aircraft. The P82 even if it had seen WWII service wouldn't beat it as a night fighter as the best really worked with 2 crewmembers ( one concrentrating on flying/killing the other on Navigating/locatating targetting ). They also outlasted the P82 (1954 vs 1956).

Don't base the Mossie on the Il2 version is that is without doubt badly modelled and inaccurate.

Incedently I don't feel the B29 was the best WWII heavy. The Lancaster was a more flexible bomber and could carry more bombload. The only area the Lancaster ( and post war it's successor ) truly lost out to the B29 was range which makes the B29 the best max Range Bomber. However if your not in the Pacific theatre ( or post war trying to bomb Russia) then the Lancy is the best.

WOLFMondo
10-09-2006, 03:48 PM
The B29 could actually carry allot more using external pylons. They could carry two tallboys although it was never used. The Lancaster was so good because it had a very long bomb bay. The US bomber had deep but short bays.

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Mossies were ok, but there were much better.

Sergio
ROFLMAO.. You must be KIDDING.. the Mossie was THE BEST light/Medium bomber of WWII, probably the best nightfighter, the best Pinpoint bomber ( pathfinders used mainly Mossies in the end, some Lanc's but the Mossies where the best).

It was an awsome aircraft. The P82 even if it had seen WWII service wouldn't beat it as a night fighter as the best really worked with 2 crewmembers ( one concrentrating on flying/killing the other on Navigating/locatating targetting ). They also outlasted the P82 (1954 vs 1956).

Don't base the Mossie on the Il2 version is that is without doubt badly modelled and inaccurate.

Incedently I don't feel the B29 was the best WWII heavy. The Lancaster was a more flexible bomber and could carry more bombload. The only area the Lancaster ( and post war it's successor ) truly lost out to the B29 was range which makes the B29 the best max Range Bomber. However if your not in the Pacific theatre ( or post war trying to bomb Russia) then the Lancy is the best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Are you high?
B-29 could carry a 20,000lb load as standard.
Only specially modded Lancasters could carry
more, and then for short range.

B-29s with armament removed averaged 17,000 lb loads
to Japan from Guam!
20,000 lbs of incendiaries became a normal load
from Guam to Japanese cities at night.

Lanc was a old but usefull design. Like all other
bombers except the A-26, obsolete at war's end.

Sergio

DomJScott
10-09-2006, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The B29 could actually carry allot more using external pylons. They could carry two tallboys although it was never used. The Lancaster was so good because it had a very long bomb bay. The US bomber had deep but short bays.

The information I have to hand was 20000lb's for a B-29 and 220000lb's for a Lancaster. As you say the Lancy's main strength was it's flexibility, you couldn't put a Bouncing bomb in a B-29 for instance. But unless you show me a reference which contradicts the informaiton I've found I'll stick to the Lancy carrying more weight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Oh and Sergio.. the Mossie was far from obsolete at wars end.

In fact the Grandslam was 22000lb :P - I believe the only mod's to carry it where in the bomb bay. It was used against the Ruhr so the range couldn't have been THAT bad.

luftluuver
10-09-2006, 04:02 PM
Lets not take lessons from you know who Sergio.

Guam to Tokyo is ~1500mi.

Maximum range was 3250 miles at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html)

WOLFMondo
10-09-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The B29 could actually carry allot more using external pylons. They could carry two tallboys although it was never used. The Lancaster was so good because it had a very long bomb bay. The US bomber had deep but short bays.

The information I have to hand was 20000lb's for a B-29 and 220000lb's for a Lancaster. As you say the Lancy's main strength was it's flexibility, you couldn't put a Bouncing bomb in a B-29 for instance. But unless you show me a reference which contradicts the informaiton I've found I'll stick to the Lancy carrying more weight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Oh and Sergio.. the Mossie was far from obsolete at wars end.

In fact the Grandslam was 22000lb :P - I believe the only mod's to carry it where in the bomb bay. It was used against the Ruhr so the range couldn't have been THAT bad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sergio is right even if his figures are wrong. The B29 was a better bomber, it could carry more unmodified, modified it could carry 24,000Lbs in the form of 2 Tallboys, thats 1 more than a Lancaster could carry as it had no external hardpoints that could take that kind of weight.
Compare tonnage dropped though for the one that made a larger contribution and the Lanc wins.

The Lancasters direct successor did outlive the B29's service life by many years though. The basic design lived for a very long time.

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Lets not take lessons from you know who Sergio.

Guam to Tokyo is ~1500mi.

Maximum range was 3250 miles at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html)


Correct for a fully armed B-29.
Do the numbers as I have. The average bomb load
from the Mariannas was just over 17,000 lbs.
Reason was the guns, turrets, armour were all removed.
Japan had no night fighters that were worth a mention. No need for guns at night.

By the way, the B-29D/B-50 could carry over 28,000 lbs
internally. Same plane with P&W R-4360 engines.

Notice that the Soviets decided to copy a B-29 (down to the last rivit)
for the TU-4.
Why did they not copy a Lancaster?

By the way, my two favorite British WWII planes
were the Halifax and Lancaster.
I am of the opinion that the halifax was the better weapon
but the Lancaster was more adaptable.

Sergio

DomJScott
10-09-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Lets not take lessons from you know who Sergio.

Guam to Tokyo is ~1500mi.

Maximum range was 3250 miles at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html)


Correct for a fully armed B-29.
Do the numbers as I have. The average bomb load
from the Mariannas was just over 17,000 lbs.
Reason was the guns, turrets, armour were all removed.
Japan had no night fighters that were worth a mention. No need for guns at night.

By the way, the B-29D/B-50 could carry over 28,000 lbs
internally. Same plane with P&W R-4360 engines.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B50 was post war and, according to wikipedia ( quickest reference) still only 20K internal. The extra 8K was external.

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Lets not take lessons from you know who Sergio.

Guam to Tokyo is ~1500mi.

Maximum range was 3250 miles at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029i.html)


Correct for a fully armed B-29.
Do the numbers as I have. The average bomb load
from the Mariannas was just over 17,000 lbs.
Reason was the guns, turrets, armour were all removed.
Japan had no night fighters that were worth a mention. No need for guns at night.

By the way, the B-29D/B-50 could carry over 28,000 lbs
internally. Same plane with P&W R-4360 engines.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B50 was post war and, according to wikipedia ( quickest reference) still only 20K internal. The extra 8K was external. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected, the 8,000lbs was external.

B-50 was a war time design that did fly before VJ day as the B-44
and later as the B-29D. The name was changed
"to reflect the major design changes".
More accurately the name change was to protect
the program from being canceled!
B-29 was canceled, the B-29D would have canceled too.
And it was, on paper.

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The information I have to hand was 20000lb's for a B-29 and 220000lb's for a Lancaster. As

No bomber, not even the B-36 or B-52 can carry
"220000lb's" of bombs.

Maximum including externals for a B-52 and a B-36H
was around 88,000 lbs.

Sergio

DomJScott
10-09-2006, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The information I have to hand was 20000lb's for a B-29 and 220000lb's for a Lancaster. As

No bomber, not even the B-36 or B-52 can carry
"220000lb's" of bombs.

hehe - I spotted the typo a few mins ago and wondered if anyone would comment :P

Maximum including externals for a B-52 and a B-36H
was around 88,000 lbs.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sergio_101
10-09-2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The information I have to hand was 20000lb's for a B-29 and 220000lb's for a Lancaster. As

No bomber, not even the B-36 or B-52 can carry
"220000lb's" of bombs.

hehe - I spotted the typo a few mins ago and wondered if anyone would comment :P

Maximum including externals for a B-52 and a B-36H
was around 88,000 lbs.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not resist but to respond in a matter of fact manner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Oh, before someone tries to kick me in the ribs
the big belly B-52D mod could carry around 80,000lbs
internally. USAF Museum says 60,000 but I clearly
remember getting 80,000 internally and more
externally for missions to Hanoi.
I am my own reference, I was there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Perhaps we have some armourers that can give us the exact figure?

Sergio

fordfan25
10-09-2006, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOODY01:
I certinly wouldnt argue with 'Chopper' Reid on this, but even worse! they also had Kiwis flying them!

I was lucky enough at easter this year to be walking alone across a paddock, all alone except for rabbit holes and a couple of Popler trees, then from my deep left this whisling sound erupted into the most fantastic sound of a F4 U1 going past at horendous speed Ill EVER see and hear. I was at Wanaka, New Zealand, Ill never forget the sound or the sight, or the way it left the P40's escorting standing still when Keith Skilling 'wanted to go'. I really coundnt belive how quiet she was, I know now why the Japenese called her 'Wispering death'.

Best ever? Depends on whos flying her. keith Skilling at the controlls? Absoultly!

The Japanese (is it non pc to say Japs ? ) used to call the Beaufighter 'Whispering death' did they call the Corsair it too?

My take on this whole topic is that if you are from the USA you will have a hard time even considering that anything other than the P47, P38, P51, F4U, Hellcat ...(insert any US built plane here) may have been better than something built in the land of the free.

Best dogfighter - Bearcat
Best Twin - P38
Best all round - Mustang
Best high alt - P47
Best 4 engined heavy - B17/B29
Best night fighter - P61
Best carrier - Hellcat

From this list I would change 4 or 5 of them and no matter which country the plane I chose comes from either British, German or Russian I am immediately accused of spamming, being anti US or even worse being a Luftwhiner!

There is no point getting drawn in to an argument with any of these people, we know who they are. Just let them live out their cowboy boots wearing, Stetson hat donning John Wayne fantasies and shoot beer cans in their back yards with their army surplus .50 calz </div></BLOCKQUOTE> And my take on this whole topic is that if you are not from the USA you will have a hard time even considering that anything other than the spit, tempist, 109, 190, yak,la-7 ...(insert any non- US built plane here) may have been better than something not built in the land of the free.

There is no point getting drawn in to an argument with any of these people, we know who they are. Just let them live out their red barron fantasys , and drink there tea while whinning and sit around there house bit**ing about problems yet not takeing any action to help solve them but just waiting on the cowboys to ride in and save the day...again so thay can bit** about how it was done years later. see i can be like you to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

fighter_966
10-09-2006, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOODY01:
I certinly wouldnt argue with 'Chopper' Reid on this, but even worse! they also had Kiwis flying them!

I was lucky enough at easter this year to be walking alone across a paddock, all alone except for rabbit holes and a couple of Popler trees, then from my deep left this whisling sound erupted into the most fantastic sound of a F4 U1 going past at horendous speed Ill EVER see and hear. I was at Wanaka, New Zealand, Ill never forget the sound or the sight, or the way it left the P40's escorting standing still when Keith Skilling 'wanted to go'. I really coundnt belive how quiet she was, I know now why the Japenese called her 'Wispering death'.

Best ever? Depends on whos flying her. keith Skilling at the controlls? Absoultly!

The Japanese (is it non pc to say Japs ? ) used to call the Beaufighter 'Whispering death' did they call the Corsair it too?

My take on this whole topic is that if you are from the USA you will have a hard time even considering that anything other than the P47, P38, P51, F4U, Hellcat ...(insert any US built plane here) may have been better than something built in the land of the free.

Best dogfighter - Bearcat
Best Twin - P38
Best all round - Mustang
Best high alt - P47
Best 4 engined heavy - B17/B29
Best night fighter - P61
Best carrier - Hellcat

From this list I would change 4 or 5 of them and no matter which country the plane I chose comes from either British, German or Russian I am immediately accused of spamming, being anti US or even worse being a Luftwhiner!

There is no point getting drawn in to an argument with any of these people, we know who they are. Just let them live out their cowboy boots wearing, Stetson hat donning John Wayne fantasies and shoot beer cans in their back yards with their army surplus .50 calz </div></BLOCKQUOTE> And my take on this whole topic is that if you are not from the USA you will have a hard time even considering that anything other than the spit, tempist, 109, 190, yak,la-7 ...(insert any non- US built plane here) may have been better than something not built in the land of the free.

There is no point getting drawn in to an argument with any of these people, we know who they are. Just let them live out their red barron fantasys , and drink there tea while whinning and sit around there house bit**ing about problems yet not takeing any action to help solve them but just waiting on the cowboys to ride in and save the day...again so thay can bit** about how it was done years later. see i can be like you to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well didnt see any you yanks here when we needed... one Finn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

berg417448
10-09-2006, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:



Well didnt see any you yanks here when we needed... one Finn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


Except for those Brewsters! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

fighter_966
10-09-2006, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:



Well didnt see any you yanks here when we needed... one Finn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


Except for those Brewsters! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
well we got Fiats Fokkers Russianplanes and those Brews (Thanks anyway) and Me109s and some Hawks but they were warbooty from Germans so on or two Brewester here or there... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
We did well without them.... they didnt get here actually before last days of winterwar... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

fordfan25
10-09-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOODY01:
I certinly wouldnt argue with 'Chopper' Reid on this, but even worse! they also had Kiwis flying them!

I was lucky enough at easter this year to be walking alone across a paddock, all alone except for rabbit holes and a couple of Popler trees, then from my deep left this whisling sound erupted into the most fantastic sound of a F4 U1 going past at horendous speed Ill EVER see and hear. I was at Wanaka, New Zealand, Ill never forget the sound or the sight, or the way it left the P40's escorting standing still when Keith Skilling 'wanted to go'. I really coundnt belive how quiet she was, I know now why the Japenese called her 'Wispering death'.

Best ever? Depends on whos flying her. keith Skilling at the controlls? Absoultly!

The Japanese (is it non pc to say Japs ? ) used to call the Beaufighter 'Whispering death' did they call the Corsair it too?

My take on this whole topic is that if you are from the USA you will have a hard time even considering that anything other than the P47, P38, P51, F4U, Hellcat ...(insert any US built plane here) may have been better than something built in the land of the free.

Best dogfighter - Bearcat
Best Twin - P38
Best all round - Mustang
Best high alt - P47
Best 4 engined heavy - B17/B29
Best night fighter - P61
Best carrier - Hellcat

From this list I would change 4 or 5 of them and no matter which country the plane I chose comes from either British, German or Russian I am immediately accused of spamming, being anti US or even worse being a Luftwhiner!

There is no point getting drawn in to an argument with any of these people, we know who they are. Just let them live out their cowboy boots wearing, Stetson hat donning John Wayne fantasies and shoot beer cans in their back yards with their army surplus .50 calz </div></BLOCKQUOTE> And my take on this whole topic is that if you are not from the USA you will have a hard time even considering that anything other than the spit, tempist, 109, 190, yak,la-7 ...(insert any non- US built plane here) may have been better than something not built in the land of the free.

There is no point getting drawn in to an argument with any of these people, we know who they are. Just let them live out their red barron fantasys , and drink there tea while whinning and sit around there house bit**ing about problems yet not takeing any action to help solve them but just waiting on the cowboys to ride in and save the day...again so thay can bit** about how it was done years later. see i can be like you to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well didnt see any you yanks here when we needed... one Finn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif we were busy else wear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

berg417448
10-09-2006, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:



Well didnt see any you yanks here when we needed... one Finn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


Except for those Brewsters! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
well we got Fiats Fokkers Russianplanes and those Brews (Thanks anyway) and Me109s and some Hawks but they were warbooty from Germans so on or two Brewester here or there... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
We did well without them.... they didnt get here actually before last days of winterwar... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did well with them too...or is the 26 to 1 kill claim ratio all talk?

DomJScott
10-09-2006, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
Best dogfighter - Bearcat
Best Twin - P38
Best all round - Mustang
Best high alt - P47
Best 4 engined heavy - B17/B29
Best night fighter - P61
Best carrier - Hellcat

There is no point getting drawn in to an argument with any of these people, we know who they are. Just let them live out their cowboy boots wearing, Stetson hat donning John Wayne fantasies and shoot beer cans in their back yards with their army surplus .50 calz And my take on this whole topic is that if you are not from the USA you will have a hard time even considering that anything other than the spit, tempist, 109, 190, yak,la-7 ...(insert any non- US built plane here) may have been better than something not built in the land of the free.
[/QUOTE]
hehe Well I think people would be hard pressed to disagree that for operational and active in squadrons the US had the best Naval Fighters. The Sea Fury can compete for that claim but is post war.

Heavy Bomber, well drawn between the B29 and Lancy ( let's not forget also the 29 was more unreliable ) B29 having the leg's, Lancy the flexibility and reliability.

Light/Medium Bomber - Mossie hands down.

Fighter/Intercepter is truly not easy to call, P51, Tempest, Spit, 190 can all probably lay claim.

Best twin - P38 without a doubt ( twin mustang post war )

Medium Bomber - honestly the Mossie is the best.


etc. so as you'd expect no once nation truly holds the best. I think the British had the most top end aircraft but not allways the best in any class. They got things like the typical weapon loadout spot on in the end with the 4 cannon supplimented where needed by machine guns. The Germans lost there way with mixxing bomber killer weapons with fighter and never really seemed to hit a good solution. The Americans I'd say where second on this front with consistant use of the 0.5" making life easier for the pilot.

Fork-N-spoon
10-09-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:


The Japanese (is it non pc to say Japs ? )

There is something that I€ve often wondered about the politically correct crowd. Do they realize that in their attempts to correct people€s language so that it€s not intrusive, the politically correct crowd has actually become intrusive and insulting? I€m personally offended by half their efforts to correct people€s language. Moreover, the term Jap is simply short for Japanese and depending upon its usage, it can be insulting or not. If somebody out there is offended every time they hear the word Jap I would suggest that they have a sook about it and get on with life. After all, if there wasn€t any negative connotation in the use of the word, it wasn€t supposed to be offensive.

I had a black, €œAfrican American woman€ girl in my college Sociology class. We frequently have to get up in front of the class to read our essays that we€ve written. When I had to read my essay, I kept using the word black in reference toward African Americans. After a few minutes, some black girl rudely interrupted me and corrected my use of the word €œblack.€ I looked at her, told her how rude she was for interrupting me not only halfway through my essay, but also for correcting me in front of my peers. I then told her that there weren€t any negative connotations attached to my usage of the word black. Furthermore, I told her that henceforth I would use the word African American and attach a negative connotation to it. I continued on and used €œAfrican American€ in such a sarcastic and angry way that it implied something negative towards the €œAfrican American€ word/people. So in closing, it€s all in how the word is used. Even words approved by the politically correct crowd can be pejorative. Not that you were being politically correct mynameisroland, it just jumped out at me in your post and I haven€t had my rant for the day. God do I loath the politically
correct!

fordfan25
10-09-2006, 09:55 PM
my opinion is best OVERALL fighter that saw combat in ww2 is the F4u-4. like i said it just did more and did all those things very well. it was compatative in pretty much everything it did.

fordfan25
10-09-2006, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:


The Japanese (is it non pc to say Japs ? )

There is something that I€ve often wondered about the politically correct crowd. Do they realize that in their attempts to correct people€s language so that it€s not intrusive, the politically correct crowd has actually become intrusive and insulting? I€m personally offended by half their efforts to correct people€s language. Moreover, the term Jap is simply short for Japanese and depending upon its usage, it can be insulting or not. If somebody out there is offended every time they hear the word Jap I would suggest that they have a sook about it and get on with life. After all, if there wasn€t any negative connotation in the use of the word, it wasn€t supposed to be offensive.

I had a black, €œAfrican American woman€ girl in my college Sociology class. We frequently have to get up in front of the class to read our essays that we€ve written. When I had to read my essay, I kept using the word black in reference toward African Americans. After a few minutes, some black girl rudely interrupted me and corrected my use of the word €œblack.€ I looked at her, told her how rude she was for interrupting me not only halfway through my essay, but also for correcting me in front of my peers. I then told her that there weren€t any negative connotations attached to my usage of the word black. Furthermore, I told her that henceforth I would use the word African American and attach a negative connotation to it. I continued on and used €œAfrican American€ in such a sarcastic and angry way that it implied something negative towards the €œAfrican American€ word/people. So in closing, it€s all in how the word is used. It could have a positive or negative connotation. Not that you were being politically correct mynameisroland, it just jumped out at me in your post and I haven€t had my rant for the day. God do I loath the politically correct! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>. I love it that every one has a sh** fit about "jap" but the term redneck is thrown around with no problem. also im offended by the lable of "whight". im not whight im .....sorta peach colored. slightly tan ...well all but my neck thats sorta a........ rosie.... color http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fork-N-spoon
10-09-2006, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
I'm really in doubt the F6F-3/5 would had that success in ETO than the Spit IX had. There's only one encounter of HCats and German fighters in ETO. And the aftermath of that was not convincing for the Cat.

The SpitIX has a higher HP/weight ratio, climbed better, was faster, turned tighter, was better at altitude and had better firepower. None of these attributes matter in a dogfighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire hardly even qualifies as some useful aircraft in WWII. Its complete lack of range meant that it wasn't very useful. Moreover, it's lack of stability, inability to carry a useful bomb load over a decent range, and inability to absorb battle damage would definitely put it behind the Hellcat. Sure the Spitfire had a nice rate of climb and turning circle, but that€s of little importance in actual combat. Considering that the Hellcat has a stall speed as low or lower than the Spitfire, I would surmise that the Hellcat probably turned as well as the Spitfire. The Spitfire was marginally faster than the Hellcat. Lets face some facts, the Spitfire Mk IX and earlier models made up the bulk of Spitfire production.

I need not hear the fantasy stories by Spitfire fans about some mythical range the Spitfire had with slipper tanks and specially equipped models that had extra internal fuel capacity. The bottom line is that the Spitfire would have to be able to carry 275 gallons of fuel internally and another 150 €" 250 gallons externally to put it in any sort of league close to what most American fighters were capable of.

The bottom line is, some people need to stop confusing their online virtual combat experiences with what actually happened during WWII.

Bewolf
10-09-2006, 10:15 PM
Just to throw that in. Europe is not the Pacific. And not every airforce had it's keyrole in strategic air bombing. Hence the range argument is by far not the ultimate call here. The Spitfire was mainly an interceptor and air superiority fighter, not so much an escort craft. Labelling her inferiour just because she didn't go into deep penetration strikes is ridiculous.

Bewolf
10-09-2006, 10:19 PM
Also, even though a bit off topic, have to comment on the Mossie the best medium bomber of the war. It maybe was the best intruder, due to its very respecable speed, but all in all I'd much prefer the Ju88. When it comes to actual ground pounding, and that is what a bomber is all about, you have so much more options.

fordfan25
10-09-2006, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Just to throw that in. Europe is not the Pacific. And not every airforce had it's keyrole in strategic air bombing. Hence the range argument is by far not the ultimate call here. The Spitfire was mainly an interceptor and air superiority fighter, not so much an escort craft. Labelling her inferiour just because she didn't go into deep penetration strikes is ridiculous. actualy IMHO in this context of this thread it is completly fair to hold short rang aginst the spit. were talking usefullness not weather or not said airforce chose's to use a capabilty is not whats being discussed. its what a fighter can and cant do. fact is the spit was not as usefull overall and potinaly as a corsair or even hellcat. range is a BIG deal when fighting a war. getting ground suport to troops on the frount is a big deal and haveing a large ground payload is a big deal. ask any foot solder sence ww2 up till now. im not takeing away anything from the spit. other than it was butt ugly it was great at what it weas ment for. point deffence. but that has its limits on usefullness of fighting a war.

Fork-N-spoon
10-09-2006, 11:42 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/chopperdoescorsair.jpg

Xiolablu3
10-10-2006, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
I'm really in doubt the F6F-3/5 would had that success in ETO than the Spit IX had. There's only one encounter of HCats and German fighters in ETO. And the aftermath of that was not convincing for the Cat.

The SpitIX has a higher HP/weight ratio, climbed better, was faster, turned tighter, was better at altitude and had better firepower. None of these attributes matter in a dogfighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire hardly even qualifies as some useful aircraft in WWII. Its complete lack of range meant that it wasn't very useful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Damn , the Bf109 and SPitfire werent very usefull in WW2! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

What a waste of time it was producing 10,000+ of each of those planes.

They should have produced Hellcats and Corsairs in 1939-1943, stoopid Limeys and Krauts!

Spitfire MkVIII's had twice the capacity of fuel that the MkIX and MkV's had, still the British were not too bothered about the Spitfire IX's 'lack of range' because they prefered the MkIX version for manufacture. The MVIII was originally planned to be the next 'big' version.

The MkVIII's were sent to the Med where the better range could be better used.

SUre the range wasnt as great as P51 or Corsair, but to say it wasnt very useful is absolute rubbish. It was used throughout the war on every front, it never had probelms 'getting to the fight' Just look at Luftewaffe kill records throughout the war and see what aircraft they were most likely to meet on the Western front. The Spitfire is by far the most common.

(Wish we had some RAF kill records to look at too)

Bewolf
10-10-2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Just to throw that in. Europe is not the Pacific. And not every airforce had it's keyrole in strategic air bombing. Hence the range argument is by far not the ultimate call here. The Spitfire was mainly an interceptor and air superiority fighter, not so much an escort craft. Labelling her inferiour just because she didn't go into deep penetration strikes is ridiculous. actualy IMHO in this context of this thread it is completly fair to hold short rang aginst the spit. were talking usefullness not weather or not said airforce chose's to use a capabilty is not whats being discussed. its what a fighter can and cant do. fact is the spit was not as usefull overall and potinaly as a corsair or even hellcat. range is a BIG deal when fighting a war. getting ground suport to troops on the frount is a big deal and haveing a large ground payload is a big deal. ask any foot solder sence ww2 up till now. im not takeing away anything from the spit. other than it was butt ugly it was great at what it weas ment for. point deffence. but that has its limits on usefullness of fighting a war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree here. First of all range is a big deal only when range is requried. That is true for escort duties, but hardly for close air support which you praise those fighters for. A plane that has to cover huge distances before able to assist ground troops most likely would come to the action too late anyways. In Europe, with forward field bases or at most the channel, that is not an issue at all.

Now how you define uselfulness is a whole different thing. If a plane only gets good when it fights AND bombs well, then 90 % of all WW2 fighters are indeed inferiour. But then again, I have a hard time agreeing to that definition.

The only point I agree too is the uglyness of the Spit.

Badsight-
10-10-2006, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
The Spitfire hardly even qualifies as some useful aircraft in WWII. Its complete lack of range meant that it wasn't very useful.. . . . . . . Mk8 & Mk14 range with wing tanks . . . . from the coast of England . . . . . .



http://xs207.xs.to/xs207/06412/Spitfires_with_wing_tanks.jpg

not bad for a defense interceptor

Badsight-
10-10-2006, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Best dogfighter - Bearcat you would be correct , if you had said Interceptor instead of Dogfighter

because a Ki-43 or a I-16 would clean up any Bearcat that tried to turn with them .

you might get 2 complete turns before you started getting shot up

& we all know the inspiration that bucked the development trend for the Bearcat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WOLFMondo
10-10-2006, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
I'm really in doubt the F6F-3/5 would had that success in ETO than the Spit IX had. There's only one encounter of HCats and German fighters in ETO. And the aftermath of that was not convincing for the Cat.

The SpitIX has a higher HP/weight ratio, climbed better, was faster, turned tighter, was better at altitude and had better firepower. None of these attributes matter in a dogfighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire hardly even qualifies as some useful aircraft in WWII. Its complete lack of range meant that it wasn't very useful. Moreover, it's lack of stability, inability to carry a useful bomb load over a decent range, and inability to absorb battle damage would definitely put it behind the Hellcat. Sure the Spitfire had a nice rate of climb and turning circle, but that€s of little importance in actual combat. Considering that the Hellcat has a stall speed as low or lower than the Spitfire, I would surmise that the Hellcat probably turned as well as the Spitfire. The Spitfire was marginally faster than the Hellcat. Lets face some facts, the Spitfire Mk IX and earlier models made up the bulk of Spitfire production.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You Sir have no idea about Spitfire production and when IX's finally finished rolling of the production line of in fact any real knowledge about the Spitfire.

Couldn't carry a good load of ordanance? The Spitfire IX was the RAF's most abundent ground attack aircraft after D-Day. FACT.
Spitfires fulfilled almost every role possible for a single engined plane, something no Hellcat could ever claim.
The Spitfire did'nt need to have a long range, it was a short/medium range fighter and could reach the edge of Germany with drop tanks. FACT.
Wasn't very useful? Over 20,000 were built and flew in every major allied airforce.FACT.
The Spitfires service life was almost double the Hellcats. FACT.
Turning circle and climb rate not important in combat? Are you fishing? The Spitfire was designed as a interceptor, climb rate is its most important quality. How can someone intercept something when they can't get to it? If I can climb above you and turn inside you when can you do to beat me in a Hellcat? Dive away and thats about it.
Spitfire IX made up the bulk of production? of cause it did, but it was built until the end of the war and had over 1200 modifications between the first and last produced IX's.

Learn your Spitfire and RAF facts.


Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The information I have to hand was 20000lb's for a B-29 and 220000lb's for a Lancaster. As

No bomber, not even the B-36 or B-52 can carry
"220000lb's" of bombs.

hehe - I spotted the typo a few mins ago and wondered if anyone would comment :P

Maximum including externals for a B-52 and a B-36H
was around 88,000 lbs.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not resist but to respond in a matter of fact manner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Oh, before someone tries to kick me in the ribs
the big belly B-52D mod could carry around 80,000lbs
internally. USAF Museum says 60,000 but I clearly
remember getting 80,000 internally and more
externally for missions to Hanoi.
I am my own reference, I was there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Perhaps we have some armourers that can give us the exact figure?

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah! Stop mis quoting me! I didn't write that! :P

Kurfurst__
10-10-2006, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
The Spitfire hardly even qualifies as some useful aircraft in WWII. Its complete lack of range meant that it wasn't very useful.. . . . . . . Mk8 & Mk14 range with wing tanks . . . . from the coast of England . . . . . .

http://xs207.xs.to/xs207/06412/Spitfires_with_wing_tanks.jpg

not bad for a defense interceptor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not bad, save for the fact that after hitting that red line you draw there, it just can't fly back to base due to the lack of internal fuel capacity. No matter how big ferry you'd put on the plane, you'd have to return on the internal capacity which was enough for for only ca 360/450 miles of journey on highspeed/economic cruise, with no air combat involved of course. No air combat range is hardly usuful for anything, however.

reisen52
10-10-2006, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
First of all range is a big deal only when range is requried. That is true for escort duties, but hardly for close air support which you praise those fighters for.

Wrong, as range converts into loiter time in the CAS role.

Zeke

WOLFMondo
10-10-2006, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
getting ground suport to troops on the frount is a big deal and haveing a large ground payload is a big deal.

Again, learn your Spitty facts and RAF fact. Go read the 2nd TAF Volumes. Your so utterly wrong it hurts. That comment automatically shows you have no idea what happened before, during or after D-day.

Over 50 2nd TAF Spitfires squadrons sat behind the front lines in forward air fields along with Mosquitos, Typhoons, Tempests, A20's, B25's, Wellingtons, Beaufighters etc. They would fly 20 or 30 miles in support of troops so range means nothing, they could carry 1000lbs of bombs, which is a useful load out, sorties turn around time and quick delivery means everything in that environment. The Spifire was actually pretty good at doing that.

Sergio_101
10-10-2006, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
The Spitfire hardly even qualifies as some useful aircraft in WWII. Its complete lack of range meant that it wasn't very useful.. . . . . . . Mk8 & Mk14 range with wing tanks . . . . from the coast of England . . . . . .

http://xs207.xs.to/xs207/06412/Spitfires_with_wing_tanks.jpg

not bad for a defense interceptor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not bad, save for the fact that after hitting that red line you draw there, it just can't fly back to base due to the lack of internal fuel capacity. No matter how big ferry you'd put on the plane, you'd have to return on the internal capacity which was enough for for only ca 360/450 miles of journey on highspeed/economic cruise, with no air combat involved of course. No air combat range is hardly usuful for anything, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


DANG, I HATE agreeing with Kurfurst__.
But he has a point.
Same problem for most European fighters
including the Spit and 109, poor range.
BUT for the short period between the invasion
of the continent and the defeat of the Luftwaffe
Spitfires became very useful. Forward bases
in Belgum and France allowed the short range Spits
to become a key player again.

This situation also brought Allied air bases
into range of Bf-109s as proven by operation Bodenplatte.

Sergio

Kurfurst__
10-10-2006, 03:14 AM
The Bf 109F/G/K had about 50% more range than the mid/late war spits (save the VIII), and had about 70% of the range of the P-51B.

Of course the Spits range was perfectly enough to protect British airspace - after all that was what it was designed for. This requirement was soon become obsolate, however.

WOLFMondo
10-10-2006, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
The Spitfire hardly even qualifies as some useful aircraft in WWII. Its complete lack of range meant that it wasn't very useful.. . . . . . . Mk8 & Mk14 range with wing tanks . . . . from the coast of England . . . . . .

http://xs207.xs.to/xs207/06412/Spitfires_with_wing_tanks.jpg

not bad for a defense interceptor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not bad, save for the fact that after hitting that red line you draw there, it just can't fly back to base due to the lack of internal fuel capacity. No matter how big ferry you'd put on the plane, you'd have to return on the internal capacity which was enough for for only ca 360/450 miles of journey on highspeed/economic cruise, with no air combat involved of course. No air combat range is hardly usuful for anything, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


DANG, I HATE agreeing with Kurfurst__.
But he has a point.
Same problem for most European fighters
including the Spit and 109, poor range.
BUT for the short period between the invasion
of the continent and the defeat of the Luftwaffe
Spitfires became very useful. Forward bases
in Belgum and France allowed the short range Spits
to become a key player again.

This situation also brought Allied air bases
into range of Bf-109s as proven by operation Bodenplatte.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Allied airbases in the UK were always within range of the Luftwaffe. Nothing changed other than the need to attack those bases. The Spitfire never had any trouble giving support over France, Belgium or Holland and its not too played upon but often did the first and last legs of 8th AF escort missions over these territories.

The Spitfires lack of range affected it for one task and one task only, daylight escort over Germany. Something that the RAF had NO requirement for.

Your using the P51D as a benchmark for the Spitfire in a task it was never designed or required to carry out.

Brain32
10-10-2006, 03:26 AM
First regarding twins and ground attack, if you ask me it's P38 hands down, huge bombload with great variety, great stability, silent engines(not important in the sim, but quite important IRL), very respectable speed and last but not least once it drops it's ordinance it can go fighter role quite effectively(IRL lol), no other twin could do it nowhere near the way P38 could.
Regarding Spitfire, I will just give one example, you were just informed that a swarm of FW190's is going towards your base, if you have Mustang or P47 only, by the time those babies climb to some respectable intercepting alt, Spitfires would already land to get their tea and medals http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
10-10-2006, 03:31 AM
Very true on both counts. I wonder how the P38 would compare to the Mosquito in a night time ground attack/CAS scenario, which is something Mosquitos often performed.

ImpStarDuece
10-10-2006, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Not bad, save for the fact that after hitting that red line you draw there, it just can't fly back to base due to the lack of internal fuel capacity. No matter how big ferry you'd put on the plane, you'd have to return on the internal capacity which was enough for for only ca 360/450 miles of journey on highspeed/economic cruise, with no air combat involved of course. No air combat range is hardly usuful for anything, however.

Except that RAF Spitfire Mk VIIs, with roughly the same internal fuel capacity as the Mk VIII and XIV (120-129 imperial gallons), and less than Mk IXs fitted with rear fuselage tanks, made daylight bomber escorts all the way to the sub pens at La Pallice (700 mile round trip), with 90 gal external tanks.

So a combat radius of 350 miles, with sufficient spare for combat, was entirely within the sphere of Spitfire operations.

The also did Rodeos and Roadsteads past Paris, Tours and Le Valle and up to Orleans and Reims, around a 650 miles round trip.

PikeBishop
10-10-2006, 03:38 AM
Dear All,
Can I just say that it is an interesting pattern that evolves in these kinds of arguements. It begins with the anecdotal and ends up with more precise talk about wing loadings, power loadings strength and range The truth is that there IS no best aircraft of WWII. If you want to talk about requirements of the time and whether a particular aircraft forfilled them that is more helpful. What one can say is which aircraft on paper was the best allrounder in terms of the above. e.g. wing loading power loading range durability load carrying capacity weapons and how it could equite itself in any situation. Looking at the Spitfire and the Ki84 in terms of the above we see that the Ki84 was a Spitfire with range.
Similarly the Shiden 2 was a corsair with manoeuverability 4 cannon and acceleration but not quite as fast.
I find it easier to make these types of comparisons because it brings everything down to numbers which is what really matters.
Best regards,
SLP

jasonbirder
10-10-2006, 03:45 AM
The Spitfire hardly even qualifies as some useful aircraft in WWII

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Don't worry when the Korean War Sim is released...all these people will leave us to get involved in Sabre vs Mig15 arguments...

Whirlin_merlin
10-10-2006, 04:17 AM
I would have thought that in late 39 and early 40 the hurricane was a much better plane than the Corsair!

Flipancy aside my memory is telling me may 1940 (28th?) for first F4U flight is this right?

DomJScott
10-10-2006, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Just to throw that in. Europe is not the Pacific. And not every airforce had it's keyrole in strategic air bombing. Hence the range argument is by far not the ultimate call here. The Spitfire was mainly an interceptor and air superiority fighter, not so much an escort craft. Labelling her inferiour just because she didn't go into deep penetration strikes is ridiculous.

Agree totally, the Spitfire was an awsome fighter, for escorting the brits knew they needed something with longer range, so they had the Mustang built ( It's an American build aircraft to british spec which the American's made use of ). HOWEVER if the Spitfire was so badly hampered then it would have been replaced by the Mustang.. it wasn't. The Spitfire was the best pure fighter/intercepter in WWII without a doubt. Best aircraft? Debateable although without a doubt the spit and hurricane was entirely responsible for winning WWII (if we'd lost BoB we'd have lost WWII). Shortish on range? Yes but had the basic design that made it almost certainly the best intercepter and probably the best dogfighter in WWII.

As for the JU-88 I have to say what the germans did with that was awsome. As good as the Mossie, I'd say not quite due to the Mossie having more speed, but it was still an awsome aircraft.

Kurfurst__
10-10-2006, 06:15 AM
Good ole Imp' beating the old dead horse...


Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Except that RAF Spitfire Mk VIIs, with roughly the same internal fuel capacity as the Mk VIII and XIV (120-129 imperial gallons),

Obviously, as VIIs are just pressurised versions of the same plane. Nitpicking eh? Let me nitpick too. IIRC about every 10th Spitfire was a VII or VIII. OR just how many Squadrons operated the MkVIII and VII in Europe at one time? Say in mid-1943? Start 1944? Half a dozen? A dozen SQns at it's peak maybe, most of them deployed in the med anyway because the other versions were so short ranged? Weren't the much shorter legged MkV and later the MkIX, the general rule and the odd VII/VIII the exception?

And the Mk XIV had much more thirsty engine and about as much range as the IX. That means rather short.


and less than Mk IXs fitted with rear fuselage tanks,[QUOTE]

Rear fuselage tanks were late, not fitted to too many planes as we both know, and were of no use to extend operational range reasons for reasons we both know. When full they made the plane a brick to fly because of CoG, so they had to be emptied first, which leaves you the original internal tank again to return, thus the same operational radius
As others noted, some of you guys try your best to make that rear ferry tank built into odd late prod Spits look as part of the internal fuel capacity - it was not the case however. 90% of the fighter Spitfires in the war had 85 gallons available internally, which limited the range the plane could effectively return from, and thus limited operational radius as well

[QUOTE]made daylight bomber escorts all the way to the sub pens at La Pallice (700 mile round trip), with 90 gal external tanks. The also did Rodeos and Roadsteads past Paris, Tours and Le Valle and up to Orleans and Reims, around a 650 miles round trip.

When did 90 gallon tanks become available for use...?
90 gallons in the external D/T tank to get there, 85 gallons in the internal tank for combat and return, what's your read on that?


So a combat radius of 350 miles, with sufficient spare for combat, was entirely within the sphere of Spitfire operations.

I'd say it's a bit optimistic and certainly streching it to the extreme limits. On internal fuel, as per British data the Spitfire IXLF would manage 365 miles on high speed cruise, and around 420 miles on ecomonic cruise (which means 220 mph ASI - certainly not a life insurance for returning from over enemy territory..). That's without high fuel consumption at combat power etc, something that is to be factored in if you're not planning a sightseeing only mission there.

Sidenote, even with all that, Orleans is no further than about the center of France, with Spits operating on the extreme edge of their range and no noteworthy endurance to stay over the target. Sounds familiar from BoB, actually...

Now it would be quite challenging to find a more biased fanboy for the Spit than the creator of that Spit site, but look, even he publicly admits the facts...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me109g6-tactical-appb.jpg

DomJScott
10-10-2006, 06:33 AM
I'd guess, unless it's feasable to fight with almost empty drop tanks (main reason for dumping them I'd assume is weight - I believe slipper tanks generally wheren't dropped if they could be at all) the main reason for using them on a spit is I would assume to increase loiter time. If your 150miles from base cruising @ 220 on external tanks, if the enemy appears you have probably 40 mins of combat before neading to headhome.

Kurfurst__
10-10-2006, 06:50 AM
It's my reasoning as well, that they were to increase endurance chiefly, and not range. The math is simple, 90 gallon to go there, 85 gallon to return -> silly thing to do.

Slipper tanks not only come with weight, also with drag, and a quite substantial amount. This report
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ab320.html

notes some 20 mph speed loss and 500 fpm from climb for a 90 gallon tank. Droptanks were not a too good idea to have on in a fight.

WOLFMondo
10-10-2006, 07:37 AM
I'd say it was for both range and endurance and always dumped when empty or before combat. Either way, they did the trick.

AFAIK 1943 was when they were introduced, to help escort US daylight bombers.


Originally posted by DomJScott:
I'd guess, unless it's feasable to fight with almost empty drop tanks (main reason for dumping them I'd assume is weight - I believe slipper tanks generally wheren't dropped if they could be at all) the main reason for using them on a spit is I would assume to increase loiter time. If your 150miles from base cruising @ 220 on external tanks, if the enemy appears you have probably 40 mins of combat before neading to headhome.

They dumped them as soon as they were empty. Anyone who couldn't aborted and went home.

Tempests used them for loiter time and patrol endurance and at one point were ordered not to drop them because they were getting through them quicker than they could be manufactured. I can't remember the 150 Wing CO's name but he told his 2nd TAF CO where to go when the order was issued.

WOLFMondo
10-10-2006, 07:39 AM
Kurfurst, most of the US built XVI's had rear fuselage tanks, which i think translated into 40% greater range.

MEGILE
10-10-2006, 09:04 AM
This thread is so dumb it makes my spleen hurt... none of you really care about historical truth.

you just want to be right and show your opponent he is wrong.

luftluuver
10-10-2006, 09:53 AM
Kurfurst you is going to get pwnd, again. This range topic has been dealt with many times before and you always get pwnd.

So nice of Kurfurst to post that doc. Too bad you did not post the doc that shows the 109G with a radius of action of ~130mi. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

mynameisroland
10-10-2006, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:


The Japanese (is it non pc to say Japs ? )

There is something that I€ve often wondered about the politically correct crowd. Do they realize that in their attempts to correct people€s language so that it€s not intrusive, the politically correct crowd has actually become intrusive and insulting? I€m personally offended by half their efforts to correct people€s language. Moreover, the term Jap is simply short for Japanese and depending upon its usage, it can be insulting or not. If somebody out there is offended every time they hear the word Jap I would suggest that they have a sook about it and get on with life. After all, if there wasn€t any negative connotation in the use of the word, it wasn€t supposed to be offensive.

I had a black, €œAfrican American woman€ girl in my college Sociology class. We frequently have to get up in front of the class to read our essays that we€ve written. When I had to read my essay, I kept using the word black in reference toward African Americans. After a few minutes, some black girl rudely interrupted me and corrected my use of the word €œblack.€ I looked at her, told her how rude she was for interrupting me not only halfway through my essay, but also for correcting me in front of my peers. I then told her that there weren€t any negative connotations attached to my usage of the word black. Furthermore, I told her that henceforth I would use the word African American and attach a negative connotation to it. I continued on and used €œAfrican American€ in such a sarcastic and angry way that it implied something negative towards the €œAfrican American€ word/people. So in closing, it€s all in how the word is used. It could have a positive or negative connotation. Not that you were being politically correct mynameisroland, it just jumped out at me in your post and I haven€t had my rant for the day. God do I loath the politically correct! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>. I love it that every one has a sh** fit about "jap" but the term redneck is thrown around with no problem. also im offended by the lable of "whight". im not whight im .....sorta peach colored. slightly tan ...well all but my neck thats sorta a........ rosie.... color http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the h_ell is whight, anyhow?

Fork-N-spoon
10-10-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
getting ground suport to troops on the frount is a big deal and haveing a large ground payload is a big deal.

Again, learn your Spitty facts and RAF fact. Go read the 2nd TAF Volumes. Your so utterly wrong it hurts. That comment automatically shows you have no idea what happened before, during or after D-day.

Over 50 2nd TAF Spitfires squadrons sat behind the front lines in forward air fields along with Mosquitos, Typhoons, Tempests, A20's, B25's, Wellingtons, Beaufighters etc. They would fly 20 or 30 miles in support of troops so range means nothing, they could carry 1000lbs of bombs, which is a useful load out, sorties turn around time and quick delivery means everything in that environment. The Spifire was actually pretty good at doing that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are several things that the Spitfire lacks for useful ground attack missions. It lacks range, load carrying capacity, stability to bring its weapons to bear during ground attack runs, and it€s not very rugged. The fact that the British used it to great extent in this capacity proves absolutely nothing. To use such statements about how Spitfires were used to do this or do that and how 20,000 plus were manufactured neither proves nor disproves a thing. For example, the Sherman tank was the best tank of the war. The Americans produced some 50,000 of them. Moreover, the Sherman tank was so good that it€s chassis spawned several self-propelled howitzers. The Sherman tank, like the Spitfire, was past its prime later in the war yet it was still produced in large quantities. While the Spitfire is an aircraft that had good speed, climb, and general maneuverability, it simply lacked the range to perform useful missions. If it had the range, it would have been much larger and probably wouldn€t have turned, climbed or had the nimble maneuverability that the short range Spitfires enjoyed.

A 1,000 lb bomb load isn€t very large. Most second-generation American fighters could carry a 1,000 lb bomb load beyond the range of the Spitfire even if the Spitfire had external fuel and wasn€t carrying external ordinance. The Spitfire€s bomb load is half to one forth the capacity of American fighters. Units in the MTO managed to lift 5,200-pound bomb loads with P-38s. Units in the MTO that used the Spitfire noted that their range capacity was greatly increased once they switched to Mustangs. In North Africa and the MTO, it wasn€t until the P-38 showed up that the allies had an aircraft with range capacity. Two things stick out in this last statement, one the P-38s were early models that only had an internal fuel capacity of 300 gallons and two the Spitfire was already there before the P-38s showed up. If shorter range P-38s could fly beyond the range of the Spitfire and loiter over the combat area for thirty minutes to one hour, one can easily surmise that the Spitfire was indeed a short range aircraft.

I€ve heard this argument about the mystical fantasy range of the Spitfire MkVIII and MkXIV and it€s a load of rubbish. The chart provided absolutely doesn€t take into account warm up, take off, 15 minutes of military power, 5 minutes of WEP, or a 30 minute reserve. All ranges provided for American fighters used this standard formula for range. Hence, many American fighters could fly beyond the range that the Army Air Corps said was possible. Once experience in the aircraft and newly learned economical cruise settings were employed, the range was increased even further. If the Spitfires from the chart were used in some useful role like ground attack or bomber escort, the range would be drastically shorter. The Spitfire couldn€t carry a useful fuel load due to external bomb load. If the Spitfire were escorting bombers, it would be drastically shorter because of all the weaving around the slower moving bombers and the course the bombers and escorts flew was never straight in and out. The chart provided is an excellent example of what the ferry range of Mk VIII and Mk XIV is. The slipper tank is an ungainly affair that has no useful purpose in combat.

This is a nice ferry range chart; now provide a chart for a practical combat radius. I€ve always enjoyed this chart for the reasons noted above and the fact that less than 1,000 MkXIV Spitfires were produced. I€m not sure about the MkVII production run, but I€m pretty sure that 13,000 to 14,000 MkV and MkIX Spitfires were produced. That€s nearly 75% of total Spitfire production€¦


http://xs207.xs.to/xs207/06412/Spitfires_with_wing_tanks.jpg

Despite all the data out there, I€m quite sure that nancy boy Spitfire fans will still cling to their €œThe Spitfire did have range bolillo, you€re just not seeing it€ train of thought. The Corsair, even the early models were indeed better suited for WWII air combat and ground support than any model Spitfire that was fielded in WWII combat.

F6_Ace
10-10-2006, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
This thread is so dumb it makes my spleen hurt... none of you really care about historical truth.

you just want to be right and show your opponent he is wrong.

And how is that any different from how this forum has always been?

Aaron_GT
10-10-2006, 01:32 PM
Kurfurst,

A few posts ago you were saying that the total journey length of a Spitfire with tanks was 360-450 miles, and then you post evidence that destroys your own argument... bizzare.

Aaron_GT
10-10-2006, 01:41 PM
While the Spitfire is an aircraft that had good speed, climb, and general maneuverability, it simply lacked the range to perform useful missions.


Hardly. It lacked the range to perform SOME missions. It seemed perfectly capable of performing quite a number of missions, though.


Units in the MTO managed to lift 5,200-pound bomb loads with P-38s.

But that's a twin. It would make more sense to compare it to the 4000lb capacity of the Mosquito. (A Mosquito could have carried more, had there been places stressed to carry them - when testing for the 4000lb cookie one was accidentally ballasted to 8000lb bomb weight and took off and flew around quite happily).


Units in the MTO that used the Spitfire noted that their range capacity was greatly increased once they switched to Mustangs.

No surprise there. But the Spitfire was perfectly capable of taking on missions within its range, which wasn't as short with additional tanks or fuselage tanks as some like to imagine.


If shorter range P-38s could fly beyond the range of the Spitfire and loiter over the combat area for thirty minutes to one hour, one can easily surmise that the Spitfire was indeed a short range aircraft.

Shorter range than other P-38s does not mean the same as short range... Plus you say the Spitfires were already there before the P-38s arrived. For how long?


I€ve heard this argument about the mystical fantasy range of the Spitfire MkVIII and MkXIV and it€s a load of rubbish.

Firstly the comment was about the XVI not XIV, and given the historical details of the missions actually flown, it seems not to be a fantasy range.

It is true to say that the USAAF fighters tended to have longer range than the Spitfire, but the Spitfire could and did fly missions over a decent distance. The P-51 definitely trumped it in range, no argument there.

joeap
10-10-2006, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
This thread is so dumb it makes my spleen hurt... none of you really care about historical truth.

you just want to be right and show your opponent he is wrong.

And how is that any different from how this forum has always been? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DING DING DING DING

DIRTY-MAC
10-10-2006, 02:43 PM
http://www.itsonlyamovie.co.uk/cover%20scans/troll%202.jpg

SkyChimp
10-10-2006, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
I'm really in doubt the F6F-3/5 would had that success in ETO than the Spit IX had. There's only one encounter of HCats and German fighters in ETO. And the aftermath of that was not convincing for the Cat.

Then what would it be for the opponents?

BillyTheKid_22
10-10-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Against ETO planes? Its like the P47, great at high altitude, down low, it would get taken to peices by Luftwaffe planes.

You dweebs seem to believe anything you type.

The F4U could out turn the 190. There was no maneuver the 190 could perform that the Corsair could not easily follow. Oh, and roll rate. No problemo.

Nice try revisionist fanbois.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
10-10-2006, 06:13 PM
Was there really a B-29 versus Lancaster argument going on? Bizzare.

I think the Avro Lincoln, built specificaly for the Pacific, would be a better comparison.

The B-29B could carry 18,000 lbs of bombs 4,200 miles at a cruise speed of 215 mph at 20,000 feet.

Max range of the Lincoln at 20,000 feet at a cruise of 215 mph with 14,000 lbs of bombs was 2,640 miles.

Max speed of the Lincoln was 294 mph at 15,000 feet. Max sped of the B-29 was 364 mph at 25,000 feet.

The Avro Lincoln had a max range of 3,750 miles. The B-29 had a max range of 5,830 miles.

The normal bombload of the B-29 was 20,000 lbs. It could be increased by mixing bombs to 22,000+ lbs. Normal bombload of the Lincoln was 14,000 lbs.

Sergio_101
10-10-2006, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Was there really a B-29 versus Lancaster argument going on? Bizzare.

I think the Avro Lincoln, built specificaly for the Pacific, would be a better comparison.

The B-29B could carry 18,000 lbs of bombs 4,200 miles at a cruise speed of 215 mph at 20,000 feet.

Max range of the Lincoln at 20,000 feet at a cruise of 215 mph with 14,000 lbs of bombs was 2,640 miles.

Max speed of the Lincoln was 294 mph at 15,000 feet. Max sped of the B-29 was 364 mph at 25,000 feet.

The Avro Lincoln had a max range of 3,750 miles. The B-29 had a max range of 5,830 miles.

The normal bombload of the B-29 was 20,000 lbs. It could be increased by mixing bombs to 22,000+ lbs. Normal bombload of the Lincoln was 14,000 lbs.


Notice that the Soviets decided to copy a B-29 (down to the last rivit)
for the TU-4.
Why did they not copy a Lancaster or Lincoln? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio

Waldo.Pepper
10-10-2006, 07:31 PM
Why did they not copy a Lancaster or Lincoln?


Because a Lincoln was a finely crafted piece of art. A desperately beautiful thing of beauty, much like a piece of fine crystal that didn't suit itself to the kind of wine press manufacturing that the Soviets were capable of after the disastrous pillaging that the Germans inflicted on them

Uhm never mind, someone might mistake this for something serious. I better stop this time while I am ahead. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
10-10-2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Why did they not copy a Lancaster or Lincoln? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio Did they have one to copy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Practical operational radius for the B-29B was 1800 miles.

SkyChimp
10-10-2006, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Why did they not copy a Lancaster or Lincoln? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio Did they have one to copy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Practical operational radius for the B-29B was 1800 miles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. Practial operational radius was a fraction of the max range. In the case of the B-29B, it was about 43% of the max range. If we apply that to the Lincoln, we get about 1,100 miles.

In other words, the B-29B had a 40% greater range, with a 23% greater normal bombload.

Giganoni
10-10-2006, 11:12 PM
The Best Plane of WW2 was the plane that helped the pilot (and crew) survive. Us, armchair WW2 fighter pilots, can whine and hollar all we want about what was the best plane (while we eat our dorritos). You can't convince people in a 4 paragraph post, a 30 minute show, or a 120 page dissertation. There will always be interpretation and bias. If you think the Corsair was the best plane of WW2, okie dokie. No sense in trying to prove it to others that won't believe.

Btw, I am currently doing heavy research (clapping my hands and saying "I believe" a lot) which will soon prove that the Ki-45 Toryu was the best plane of WW2.

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:


The Japanese (is it non pc to say Japs ? )

There is something that I€ve often wondered about the politically correct crowd. Do they realize that in their attempts to correct people€s language so that it€s not intrusive, the politically correct crowd has actually become intrusive and insulting? I€m personally offended by half their efforts to correct people€s language. Moreover, the term Jap is simply short for Japanese and depending upon its usage, it can be insulting or not. If somebody out there is offended every time they hear the word Jap I would suggest that they have a sook about it and get on with life. After all, if there wasn€t any negative connotation in the use of the word, it wasn€t supposed to be offensive.

I had a black, €œAfrican American woman€ girl in my college Sociology class. We frequently have to get up in front of the class to read our essays that we€ve written. When I had to read my essay, I kept using the word black in reference toward African Americans. After a few minutes, some black girl rudely interrupted me and corrected my use of the word €œblack.€ I looked at her, told her how rude she was for interrupting me not only halfway through my essay, but also for correcting me in front of my peers. I then told her that there weren€t any negative connotations attached to my usage of the word black. Furthermore, I told her that henceforth I would use the word African American and attach a negative connotation to it. I continued on and used €œAfrican American€ in such a sarcastic and angry way that it implied something negative towards the €œAfrican American€ word/people. So in closing, it€s all in how the word is used. It could have a positive or negative connotation. Not that you were being politically correct mynameisroland, it just jumped out at me in your post and I haven€t had my rant for the day. God do I loath the politically correct! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>. I love it that every one has a sh** fit about "jap" but the term redneck is thrown around with no problem. also im offended by the lable of "whight". im not whight im .....sorta peach colored. slightly tan ...well all but my neck thats sorta a........ rosie.... color http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the h_ell is whight, anyhow? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>wight . spelling nat.... opps almost said a bad worl lol

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Just to throw that in. Europe is not the Pacific. And not every airforce had it's keyrole in strategic air bombing. Hence the range argument is by far not the ultimate call here. The Spitfire was mainly an interceptor and air superiority fighter, not so much an escort craft. Labelling her inferiour just because she didn't go into deep penetration strikes is ridiculous. actualy IMHO in this context of this thread it is completly fair to hold short rang aginst the spit. were talking usefullness not weather or not said airforce chose's to use a capabilty is not whats being discussed. its what a fighter can and cant do. fact is the spit was not as usefull overall and potinaly as a corsair or even hellcat. range is a BIG deal when fighting a war. getting ground suport to troops on the frount is a big deal and haveing a large ground payload is a big deal. ask any foot solder sence ww2 up till now. im not takeing away anything from the spit. other than it was butt ugly it was great at what it weas ment for. point deffence. but that has its limits on usefullness of fighting a war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree here. First of all range is a big deal only when range is requried. That is true for escort duties, but hardly for close air support which you praise those fighters for. A plane that has to cover huge distances before able to assist ground troops most likely would come to the action too late anyways. In Europe, with forward field bases or at most the channel, that is not an issue at all.

Now how you define uselfulness is a whole different thing. If a plane only gets good when it fights AND bombs well, then 90 % of all WW2 fighters are indeed inferiour. But then again, I have a hard time agreeing to that definition.

The only point I agree too is the uglyness of the Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>your not getting it at all. its like tryn to argue with someone that water is more usefull than coke. ......but its not because you may never need to do anything with it other than to drink there for the fact that water can be used for much more than drinking does not make it more usefull than coke because all you may ever need it for is to drink.

and to make clear "though i should not have to" i never said the spit was not usefull because it was not as good a bomber ect. it was a usefull plane. great point defence,great dog fighter ect BUT what im saying is it like many other fighters was not able to do things the F4u-4 could do thus it is not OVERALL as usefull a plane.

Kurfurst__
10-11-2006, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Kurfurst,

A few posts ago you were saying that the total journey length of a Spitfire with tanks was 360-450 miles, and then you post evidence that destroys your own argument... bizzare.

Nope, I was talking about return journey. On return journey, your only real option is to use the internal tanks.

"...you'd have to return on the internal capacity which was enough for for only ca 360/450 miles of journey on highspeed/economic cruise..."

You've either misread or misprepresent my words.

The point here is that the rear fuselage tank installed into some Spits was useful for ferry purposes only, as it had to be consumed first before the droptank and main tank because of detrimental effect on CoG.

There was a very good reason why Supermarine bothered so much to redesign the wing in the MkVIII and co. - fuel tanks need to be near the CoG to avoid handling issues when emptying them. It's also curious that the rear fuselage tank was first installed into some planes that were heading to Malta, relatively early in the war, and otherwise could not cover the ferry range. And, despite the lack of range of the Spit, curiously nobody bother to install rear fuselage tanks in large production into Spits to solve the range problem - they knew too well it is only useful for ferry missions to large distances, and not to extend the operational radius.

panther3485
10-11-2006, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but overall the Spitfire wins any "best aeroplane of WWII" contest hands down. It flew and fought almost everywhere, and was in production as a front line fighter from before the start of the war until after its end.

That's longevity and ubiquity rather than being 'best'.

To be honest, though, you have to qualify best by theatre, time period, and mission profile. (And there is no particular reason why the F4U couldn't have been used more in Europe than it was, it just wasn't required as much as it was in the Pacific).

For example the Spitfire (in the form of the Seafire) was not a great carrier aircraft, hence the use by the FAAF of the F4F, F6F, F4U. The Spitfire, whilst it did lots of fighter bomber work, was not a patch on the F4U in the fighter bomber role. But the Spitfire was easier to fly, flew in versions at very high altitude, and was available in 1940 for important battles. Overall, though, I'd say that the F4U, due to its load carrying capability (including radar) was more versatile than the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What is 'best'? Depending on your point of view and chosen criteria 'longevity' and 'ubiquity' could be two of the very qualities that make something 'the best' within a given set of parameters. That's just the problem - peoples' ideas (criteria) for 'best' are inclined to be different.

Agree on your points of detail, though, as to how the two aircraft types you mentioned compare.

But speaking strictly from my own POV, assessing a question such as, for example, 'best fighter in theatre x', I would seriously include period of service as one of the criteria. All other things being equal (and I know they usually aren't - but for the purpose of explanation), a fighter that served (for example in the ETO) for all 6 years of the conflict and was still a viable first-line type at the end has performed better, in terms of that conflict, than one that served for, say, only the last 12 months.


Best regards, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
panther3495

Sergio_101
10-11-2006, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Why did they not copy a Lancaster or Lincoln? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio Did they have one to copy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Practical operational radius for the B-29B was 1800 miles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The communist labour goverment would gladly
have given the Soviets the plans! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Serrgio

hop2002
10-11-2006, 03:19 AM
I'd say it's a bit optimistic and certainly streching it to the extreme limits. On internal fuel, as per British data the Spitfire IXLF would manage 365 miles on high speed cruise, and around 420 miles on ecomonic cruise

No, that would be for the Merlin 61 engined Spitfire F IX. The Merlin 66, with it's different carb, used less fuel:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1156872291_90bsmall.jpg


I€ve heard this argument about the mystical fantasy range of the Spitfire MkVIII and MkXIV and it€s a load of rubbish. The chart provided absolutely doesn€t take into account warm up, take off, 15 minutes of military power, 5 minutes of WEP, or a 30 minute reserve.

Spitfire VIII with 90 gallon tank, 213 gallons.

10 gallons for warm up and takeoff.
28 gallons for 15 mins military power
11 gallons for 5 mins wep
15 gallons for 30 mins reserve

Total 64 gallons used, 149 remaining for use.

Cruise out to target and return at 300 mph 920 miles, radius 460 miles.

It's rather silly to judge the range of "the Spitfire" on a Spitfire V with no external tanks. External tanks, and greater internal tankage, aren't generally fitted until needed, for example the P-47 had inadequate range as an escort until efforts were made to improve the range once it became clear it was needed.


The point here is that the rear fuselage tank installed into some Spits was useful for ferry purposes only, as it had to be consumed first before the droptank and main tank because of detrimental effect on CoG.

No, most of it did. The tests found 25 - 35 gallons could be left in the rear tanks for combat. Even allowing only 20 gallons to remain means an extra 120+ miles return range.


It's also curious that the rear fuselage tank was first installed into some planes that were heading to Malta, relatively early in the war, and otherwise could not cover the ferry range.

It's not curious at all. They wanted to fly planes beyond their normal range, they increased the range. It's a fairly simple procedure.


And, despite the lack of range of the Spit, curiously nobody bother to install rear fuselage tanks in large production into Spits to solve the range problem

Until they needed to. Just as nobody bothered installing rear tanks into Mustangs until they needed them for escort, at which point the tanks were installed.

Just as the P-38 was designed to carry 300 gallons of fuel, and ended up carrying far more when required.

luftluuver
10-11-2006, 06:13 AM
I'd say it's a bit optimistic and certainly streching it to the extreme limits. On internal fuel, as per British data the Spitfire IXLF would manage 365 miles on high speed cruise, and around 420 miles on ecomonic cruise (which means 220 mph ASI - certainly not a life insurance for returning from over enemy territory..). The same could be said for the 109 which would have to cruise at max speed in the deadly aluminium overcast skies of western Europe. So much for your 109 range numbers Kurfurst.

No some other stuff:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange3-1.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange4-1.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange5.jpg

Kurfurst__
10-11-2006, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd say it's a bit optimistic and certainly streching it to the extreme limits. On internal fuel, as per British data the Spitfire IXLF would manage 365 miles on high speed cruise, and around 420 miles on ecomonic cruise

No, that would be for the Merlin 61 engined Spitfire F IX.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/878_1156872291_90bsmall.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's for the Merlin 66 engined Spitfire LF IX. It says 420 miles maximum on internal.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/me109g6-tactical-appb.jpg

You claim yourself such a great spitdweeb, that is willing to argue even the most surrealistic ways about the plane, yet you can't even tell that the LF IX had Merlin 66s...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


The Merlin 66, with it's different carb, used less fuel:

...In other words, you say the Merlin 61 Spit had even less range than the Merlin 66 one, ie. less than 420 miles? I think last time you claimed the Merlin 66 consumed 50% less fuel. So what that gives for the M61 Spit's range - 300 miles on slow economic cruise you say?

Jesus I never would believe it was [i]that much short legged! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Spitfire VIII with 90 gallon tank, 213 gallons.

10 gallons for warm up and takeoff.
28 gallons for 15 mins military power
11 gallons for 5 mins wep
15 gallons for 30 mins reserve

Total 64 gallons used, 149 remaining for use.

Cruise out to target and return at 300 mph 920 miles, radius 460 miles.

It's a pity that so few MkVIIIs were built, and most of those went to the PTO, isn't it?



It's rather silly to judge the range of "the Spitfire" on a Spitfire V with no external tanks.

Uhm, we are speaking about radius Hop. Time to catch up with the programme.
Radius is determined by the ability of the plane to return on internal fuel. The Spitfire I, V and IX made up the bulk during the war, and had the same very limited internal capacity, and thus radius. For quite a considerable time, the MkV didn't even have droptank option.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The point here is that the rear fuselage tank installed into some Spits was useful for ferry purposes only, as it had to be consumed first before the droptank and main tank because of detrimental effect on CoG.

No, most of it did. The tests found 25 - 35 gallons could be left in the rear tanks for combat. Even allowing only 20 gallons to remain means an extra 120+ miles return range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source please.
BTW, 20 gallons meaning 120 miles, what's that mileage, ca 6 mpg?
Wasn't you claiming in the first place 6 mpg is false, and 10 gallon is the right number.

I'd say you're well aware what you're pushing forward is not true, just trying to make good press with cherrypicking here. Isn't that the case?

luftluuver
10-11-2006, 08:20 AM
You can rag on the Spit all you want Kurfurst but the radius of action of the 109G was only 130-135miles.


It's a pity that so few MkVIIIs were built, and most of those went to the PTO, isn't it? What are you babbling about? There was some 1654 Spit VIIIs built and most went to the MTO.

In your undieing blind hatred for the Spit Kurfurst, you forget that the Spit was used as the Allied short range fighter, with the P-47 for medium range and the P-38/P-51 for long range.

Aaron_GT
10-11-2006, 09:27 AM
There isn't much doubt that on pure numbers the B-29 is a better bomber than the Lancaster, except perhaps the inability to carry tallboys internally. The Lancaster was born from the P.13/36 specification for a fast (by the standards of the time) medium bomber, and was of a generation earlier than the B-29, so it's no surprise it is a little lacking compared to the B-29. War intervened and the 'ideal bomber' efforts to produce a successor to the Lancaster (some of which were not dissimilar in concept to the B-29) were abandoned in favour of types under development, or versions thereof (e.g. the various Wellington derivations).

Postwar the RAF sensibly bought the B-29 as the Washington whilst waiting for the next generation of British bombers, the V bombers.

Basically the USA had the advantage of not being in the war from 1939-41 to start the development of the B-29 from factories safe from bombing, whereas the British priorities were different, and hence things such as the Barnes Wallis 'Victory bomber' were not proceeded with.

In the end the significant development was the Mosquito, which was a hit with the USAAF too, but De Havilland couldn't spare the staff for the US production that Hap Arnold wanted.

BaronUnderpants
10-11-2006, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:


For example, the Sherman tank was the best tank of the war. The Americans produced some 50,000 of them. Moreover, the Sherman tank was so good that it€s chassis spawned several self-propelled howitzers.

.


Now i know your tripping...or trolling, or both.

U seriously comparing the "Tommy cooker" to a Spit, Jeeze. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Stating that the sherman was the best tank of the war, even though OT, pretty much proves your just babbling on in this topic.

Calling out "Spit fanboys" is kind of fresh comming from the same one claiming that peice of bs.



________________________________________________

"While the Spitfire is an aircraft that had good speed, climb, and general maneuverability, it simply lacked the range to perform useful missions. If it had the range, it would have been much larger and probably wouldn€t have turned, climbed or had the nimble maneuverability that the short range Spitfires enjoyed".
________________________________________________



And yet the Corsair is according to a lot of u superior in every respect, come to think of it, even the P-51....how is that? Does US planes defie laws of physics? ( More likely, common sence )



I usually try to keep it civil...but im sry, there is just so much menure i can read before my eyes pop out.....like this thread for ex.


If it indeed was a troll....good one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

hop2002
10-11-2006, 10:10 AM
No, it's for the Merlin 66 engined Spitfire LF IX. It says 420 miles maximum on internal.


The problem is it's just repeating figures from a test of a Spitfire F IX with Merlin 61.


.In other words, you say the Merlin 61 Spit had even less range than the Merlin 66 one, ie. less than 420 miles?

No, I am saying the figures you are quoting are for the Merlin 61, and that the same test figures for the Spitfire F IX with Merlin 61 were used by the RAF for all Spitfire IXs.


I think last time you claimed the Merlin 66 consumed 50% less fuel

Can you find where I said that, Isegrim, because I don't recall it.


It's a pity that so few MkVIIIs were built, and most of those went to the PTO, isn't it?

A pity? No, not really. It's a commentary on the RAF's needs. The options for increasing the range for the Spitfire were quite easy. The larger forward fuel tank added 10 gallons, it was fitted to all VIIIs, XIVs etc, later IXs and XVIs. No modifications required, just a larger tank.

The wing tanks were fitted to all VIIIs, later IXs and XVIs. Not much in the way of modification required. Neither of these options had any negative handling effects, either. The fact they weren't commonly fitted says more about the requirements than the ability.


No, most of it did. The tests found 25 - 35 gallons could be left in the rear tanks for combat. Even allowing only 20 gallons to remain means an extra 120+ miles return range.



Source please.

Spitfire the History. And the post war Spitfire IX manual forbids acrobatics with more than 30 gallons in the rear tank


BTW, 20 gallons meaning 120 miles, what's that mileage, ca 6 mpg?
Wasn't you claiming in the first place 6 mpg is false, and 10 gallon is the right number.


Both are "right". Just depends on speed. 6 mpg would give you a cruise of something over 300 mph, 10 mpg about 220 mph.


There isn't much doubt that on pure numbers the B-29 is a better bomber than the Lancaster,

There's only one advantage the Lancaster had over the B-29, and that's cost. From memory, something like 4 Lancasters could be built for the cost of 1 B-29.

Kernow
10-11-2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:


For example, the Sherman tank was the best tank of the war. The Americans produced some 50,000 of them. Moreover, the Sherman tank was so good that it€s chassis spawned several self-propelled howitzers.

.


Now i know your tripping...or trolling, or both.

U seriously comparing the "Tommy cooker" to a Spit, Jeeze. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Stating that the sherman was the best tank of the war, even though OT, pretty much proves your just babbling on in this topic.

Calling out "Spit fanboys" is kind of fresh comming from the same one claming that peice of bs.

I usually try to keep it civil...but there is just so much menure i can read before my eyes pop out.....like this thread for ex.


If it indeed was a troll....good one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I reckon it was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. He's using the Sherman as the perfect example of why numbers produced does not - necessarily - have any bearing on the quality of the product. But saying the Spit could not perform any useful missions... poor choice of words at best.

BaronUnderpants
10-11-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Kernow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:


For example, the Sherman tank was the best tank of the war. The Americans produced some 50,000 of them. Moreover, the Sherman tank was so good that it€s chassis spawned several self-propelled howitzers.

.


Now i know your tripping...or trolling, or both.

U seriously comparing the "Tommy cooker" to a Spit, Jeeze. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Stating that the sherman was the best tank of the war, even though OT, pretty much proves your just babbling on in this topic.

Calling out "Spit fanboys" is kind of fresh comming from the same one claming that peice of bs.

I usually try to keep it civil...but there is just so much menure i can read before my eyes pop out.....like this thread for ex.


If it indeed was a troll....good one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I reckon it was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. He's using the Sherman as the perfect example of why numbers produced does not - necessarily - have any bearing on the quality of the product. But saying the Spit could not perform any useful missions... poor choice of words at best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, thank god. i though i died and went to WWII buffs hell. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

ploughman
10-11-2006, 10:22 AM
As Panther suggested, quantity has its own quality. And the Sherman had plenty of quantity.

Kernow
10-11-2006, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
As Panther suggested, quantity has its own quality. And the Sherman had plenty of quantity.
"Quantity has a quality all of its own."
Lenin on the Red Army, I believe.

If Panther has already mentioned the quote, apologies, but I couldn't face digging through any more of this thread to check - not that there was anything wrong with the original post.

[B-29, wasn't that a project that had money thrown at it 'till it worked? No wonder it was so technicaly advanced in the end]

Waldo.Pepper
10-11-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst

On return journey, your only real option is to use the internal tanks.


Hi again! Its me! Waldo!

This statement is patently false, at least for the Corsair. Corsairs flying from carriers would routinely return to the Carrier with their droptanks still hanging from them.

If this was possible ... why do you state that your only real option was to return on internal fuel (for anyplane)?

SkyChimp
10-11-2006, 05:09 PM
I always liked this picture:

http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/images/xb36_b29.jpg

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
As Panther suggested, quantity has its own quality. And the Sherman had plenty of quantity. as tank the sherman was a POS. by late war it was avg if a little above.

fordfan25
10-11-2006, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I always liked this picture:

http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/images/xb36_b29.jpg please chimp that pic was photoshoped as propaganda. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sergio_101
10-11-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
As Panther suggested, quantity has its own quality. And the Sherman had plenty of quantity. as tank the sherman was a POS. by late war it was avg if a little above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Sherman was an excellent weapon.
Fast, reliable and easily shipped it
was available in massive numbers.

It was not a Tiger or a Panther.

But I'll argue it was a better weapon.

tanks are really not supposed to duke it out
with tanks. Tank vs tank battle is best avoided.


Sergio

Sergio_101
10-11-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I always liked this picture:

http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/images/xb36_b29.jpg please chimp that pic was photoshoped as propaganda. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Chimpster, if nothing else the B-36 was big.
Still the largest purpose built combat plane ever.

Sergio

heywooood
10-11-2006, 06:38 PM
they didn't break through too many runways... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif


Weren't we talking about the 'Sair ?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/4thMarineAW.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/sairearly.jpg

Best damm airplane ever...next to the Tomcat

SkyChimp
10-11-2006, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by heywooood:
they didn't break through too many runways... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif


Weren't we talking about the 'Sair ?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/4thMarineAW.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/sairearly.jpg

Best damm airplane ever...next to the Tomcat

If you say "Sair" one more time, I'm serious, I'm going to kick you in the nuts.

http://www.southparkx.net/gallery/data/media/27/cartman.jpg

panther3485
10-11-2006, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
"The Sherman was an excellent weapon.
Fast, reliable and easily shipped it
was available in massive numbers."

The Sherman certainly had its good points and has been under-rated by many, who tend to focus only on how it compared in gunpower and particularly in armour with Panthers and Tigers. People are inclined to forget other important factors in war, such as logistics.



Originally posted by Sergio_101:
"It was not a Tiger or a Panther."

For a start, it was 13 tons lighter than Panther and 24 tons lighter than Tiger. But even in Normandy in 1944, its most numerous tank opponent was the PzKpfw IV (with which it compared more closely in fighting power), the later versions of which weighed in at around 25 tons. Panthers were somewhat less common, though present in substantial numbers. Tigers were a relative rarity.



Originally posted by Sergio_101:
"But I'll argue it was a better weapon."

In some respects, yes. When it first appeared in action in 1942 it was, with very few exceptions, equal or superior to the best enemy tanks. It also served Allied needs rather well, in terms of providing a tank that was of reasonable-to-good fighting quality (for the mid-war period), in substantial numbers. Not being overly heavy also helped with shipping. Another point of interest is the 75mm HE ammo, which was more effective for general support work than the 75mm HE rounds used by PzKpfw IV or Panther.



Originally posted by Sergio_101:
"....tanks are really not supposed to duke it out with tanks. Tank vs tank battle is best avoided."

Trouble is, it CAN'T always be avoided. This doctrine was found to be seriously flawed in WW2 and today, nobody follows it. The modern tank is designed and built with the needs of tank vs tank combat very much in mind (as well as all the other requirements, of course).

One of the main reasons the Sherman was not re-gunned with a better anti-tank weapon sooner was that US Tank Destroyers were supposed to tackle the enemy tanks.

Trouble was, Sherman crews sometimes found themselves at loggerheads with enemy armour whether they liked it or not - simply the dictates of the battle at hand. And TDs were not always in precisely the right place at precisely the right time.

It was then that the Sherman's relatively weak armour and (in the case of the 75mm later in the war) poor anti-tank performance often let it down. And until wet-jacket stowage was introduced for the ammo, they had an alarming tendency to burst into an inferno of flames with just about any penetration.

The flawed doctrine was belatedly recognized, by up-gunning the Sherman to a higher-velocity 76mm weapon (a change that would have been possible sooner but had been resisted initially). And the British improvised the 17pdr Firefly, which proved to be deadly! But the real answer was a tank with better gunpower AND better armour, plus mobility that was still acceptable. This arrived in the shape of the M26 Pershing, just before the war ended.


Of course, this is well and truly OT for the thread......

Now what was that about the F4U again? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif