PDA

View Full Version : Twin-engined fighters. Which is best?



CzechTexan
08-03-2006, 06:49 AM
Looking for your input with either facts or opinions of the best twin-engined fighters.

CzechTexan
08-03-2006, 06:49 AM
Looking for your input with either facts or opinions of the best twin-engined fighters.

stathem
08-03-2006, 06:53 AM
F15.

No seriously, P-38, it was the only one which could ever hope to even begin to compete properly with s/e.

(apart for the Whirlwind, natch.)

BBB_Hyperion
08-03-2006, 06:53 AM
262 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

russ.nl
08-03-2006, 06:53 AM
G1 be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif!

leitmotiv
08-03-2006, 06:58 AM
1939-40 Bf 110C
1940-41 Whirlwind
1942-44 P-38
1944-45 Me 262

If the Fw 187 had been produced as a single-seater, it would have been on the list.

Divine-Wind
08-03-2006, 07:23 AM
WHIRLWIND!


... As soon as it gets ingame, that is.

Monty_Thrud
08-03-2006, 08:10 AM
Bif109Z http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Actually i'm quite surprised there isn't a "Battle of the Twins" server up and running we have enough for variety http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Doug_Thompson
08-03-2006, 08:15 AM
Oh, gee, let me think.

Hmmm. I guess it would have to be the Do-335. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seriously, it's faster and better armed than the P-38, the only other serious contender. The Beaufighters, Bf-110s, etc. are more heavily armed and are great bomber destroyers, but have real trouble getting a shot against decent fighters.

Ernst_Rohr
08-03-2006, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1939-40 Bf 110C
1940-41 Whirlwind
1942-44 P-38
1944-45 Me 262 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I pretty much agree with this list. In terms of really successful twin engined fighters, P-38 has to be tops on the list. It is the only twin engined fighter that managed to be a credible threat to single engined birds throughout its service life.

p1ngu666
08-03-2006, 08:48 AM
mossie too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
08-03-2006, 10:58 AM
There are good reasons for substituting the Do 335 it for the 262 on my list---nearly as fast, better fighter-bomber, better fighter because it did not have touchy and tactically limiting early turbojets. In fact, I'd boot the 262 off of the 1945 list and add the 335 there. The Mosquito was not nimble enough to rate being on a day fighter list. It was an excellent night fighter like the He 219 or P-61 but in the day it was more a fast, armed bomber than a true fighter.

stathem
08-03-2006, 01:01 PM
There's one good reason not to; the Do-335 was never proved in combat.

leitmotiv
08-03-2006, 01:06 PM
A small number of test machines were tried in combat. Pierre Clostermann ran into one and it left his Tempest in the dust.

stathem
08-03-2006, 01:23 PM
I know. Being able to run away really fast does not make a good fighter, it makes a good recce machine.

The object of a fighter is to shoot the oppo. down, something the Dornier singulary failed to do. Beacuse prototypes were in the combat zone doesn't mean they would be facing the same kind of opposition machines by they time they were fully worked up and in squadron service.

zeno303
08-03-2006, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
WHIRLWIND!


... As soon as it gets ingame, that is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez, the Whirlwind might get my vote for "prettiest," but with those RR Peregrine engines, it was pretty much of a dog.

My vote would have to go to the P-38L with the anti-compressability flaps & hydraulically boosted controls.

Crash_Moses
08-03-2006, 01:35 PM
B-25/PBJ!!!!!

Xiolablu3
08-03-2006, 02:42 PM
In the game the P38 is far ahead of any other twin engined plane as a fighter.

And probably was in WW2, too.

PBNA-Boosher
08-03-2006, 03:04 PM
P-38, most definitely. It's w00tness increases four times in a 2 plane formation.

VW-IceFire
08-03-2006, 03:17 PM
Definately the P-38 is the best twin engined fighter. Reasons:

1) As fast as single seat fighters

2) Just as manueverable as a single seater with a few caveats (its a bit slow to get into a manuever but once there its better than most)

3) Counter rotating props cancel torque instead of giving you two engines generating torque instead of one

4) Tricycle landing gear makes taxiing easy (in comparison to the Bf110 or Mosquito)

Basically the P-38 is a best of both worlds...it has a single engine ability but with all of the bonuses of a twin engine. Its not perfect....as its a larger target, it takes a while to manuever in comparison to a single engined fighter, its compressability problem is exemplified in this game but no less of a problem in the real world, and visibility to the sides is something of a problem. But it has enourmous firepower, incredible stall manuevering, incredible climb and power, and it looks great as well.

Gibbage1
08-03-2006, 03:56 PM
I cant consider the Me-262 a good FIGHTER. Its ONLY 2 benifits were firepower and speed. Its limited range and poor engines really worked against it in any role other then pure defensive. What good is a fighter if its looking for a place to land the moment it enguages?

Do-335 was flown, but never proven. We cant say what it could of done since it did nothing for the war effort then gobble up a lot of money. All we know is it went fast, and had a lot of firepower. At least it had range over the 262.

Me-110 was a flying target even in 1939.

The P-38 all the way for the best twin fighter of WWII. Range, speed, firepower, armorment and a proven reccord to match any and all single engine fighters in combat.

Any nation can make a short range manuverable fighter, but it takes true enginuity to make a long range fighter to compete with that short range fighter since your dealing with a LOT more weight, and the P-38 was 2-3x heavier then its targets and still came out the winner. That says a lot.

Sergio_101
08-03-2006, 04:35 PM
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060728-F-1234S-015.jpg

P-82 hands down.
Was ready in time for use in combat.
But like many US aircraft it was not
used as other planes that were available
in huge numbers could do it's intended job.

Sergio

WarWolfe_1
08-03-2006, 05:20 PM
P-38. Had all the qualites of single engine fighter, minus the torque, great range, good gun package, most problems were ironed out by the time the P-38L came in to the picture. High Alt proformance was limited but its advanatges over rule that. Had it not been for that one factor I think it would have done just as well over Europe. The Germans feared it enough to give it a nickname.

DIRTY-MAC
08-03-2006, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zeno303:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
WHIRLWIND!


... As soon as it gets ingame, that is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez, the Whirlwind might get my vote for "prettiest," but with those RR Peregrine engines, it was pretty much of a dog.



No it wasnt, it was infact faster than the Spit and Me109E down low http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://www.screenshotartist.co.uk/images/cwdt/CWDT_westy/cwdt_westy_09.jpg
http://www.screenshotartist.co.uk/images/cwdt/CWDT_westy/cwdt_westy_18.jpg

tigertalon
08-03-2006, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I cant consider the Me-262 a good FIGHTER. Its ONLY 2 benifits were firepower and speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those two are the most important fighter characteristic... remember 1942 western front?


on topic:

IRL: Su-27 series
IRL WW2: P-38
In PF: Me 262
In PF prop: Do335

BfHeFwMe
08-03-2006, 11:02 PM
It did do as well in Europe, the Southern theatre, where the 38 units had a strong core group formed and trained on Lightnings from the start. Not like up north where they threw them the keys, here's your new planes boys. The 38 was not a noob friendly aircraft, it took more hours and training to get the full potential out of a pilot, but it was already there with the plane.

woofiedog
08-04-2006, 12:21 AM
http://frenchaces.free.fr/photos/hautedef/673.jpg

Powerplant: 2”Ē Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W Double Wasp radial engines, 2,100 hp (1,600 kW) each

Maximum speed: 460 mph (740 km/h)
Range: 1,200 miles (1,900 km)
Service ceiling: 40,400 ft (12,300 m)
Rate of climb: ft/min (m/s)
Wing loading: lb/ft‚¬≤ (kg/m‚¬≤)
Power/mass: hp/lb (kW/kg)
Armament
4”Ē 20 mm M2 cannon
4”Ē .50 cal (12.7 mm) Browning M2 machine guns
2”Ē 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under wings
1”Ē torpedo under fuselage, in place of bombs

F7F Tigercat was one of the highest-performance piston-engined fighters, with a top speed well in excess of the US Navy's single-engined aircraft - 80 mph (130 km/h) faster than a F4U Corsair at sea level.

Two Tigercats were evaluated, but rejected, by the British Royal Navy in 1945, preferring a navalized version of the de Havilland Hornet.

A number of Tigercats were used as water bombers to fight forest fires in the 1960s and 1970s, and for this reason twelve examples exist today. Six of these are still airworthy.

One heavily modified Tigercat "Big Bossman" competes in the national air racing circuit.

Was originally nicknamed the "Tomcat" but this name was rejected as it was considered too suggestive. The nickname would much later be used for the Grumman F-14.

dusta01
08-04-2006, 01:06 AM
pffft mossies leaves everything behind .

Vacillator
08-04-2006, 03:56 AM
Haha Woofie, you beat me to it. After watching the Tigercat at Duxford the other week I was mightily impressed (shame for UK it's gone off to the States now or will do soon). The way that thing powered around the display with the Bearcat (also superb) in close attendance was spectacular.

luftluuver
08-04-2006, 04:40 AM
http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/images/hornetboxart_nf21.jpg

The de Havilland Hornet was a development of de Havilland's classic Mosquito designed as private venture for a long-range fighter for use in the Pacific Theater in the war against Japan. Specification F.12/43 was written around the type. The Hornet equipped Fighter Command day fighter units in the UK and later was used with success as a strike fighter in Malaya.

The Hornet, D.H.103 in the company's internal numbering scheme, first flew in 1944 and remained in service until 1956. Powered by twin "slimline" Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, it was the fastest piston-engined fighter in Royal Air Force service. The Hornet has the distinction of being the the fastest wooden aircraft ever built.

The Hornet was somewhat unusual in that it had propellers that rotated in opposite directions. To achieve this the engines were slightly different, hence the double Merlin marks of 130/131. This feature effectively cancels the variable and cumulative torque effect of two propellers turning in the same direction that had plagued earlier designs such as the De Havilland Mosquito, in turn reducing the amount of adverse yaw caused by aileron trim corrections and generally providing more stable and predictable behaviour in flight.

The prototype achieved 780 km/h (485 mph) in level flight, which came down to 760 km/h (472 mph) in production aircraft.

Genie-
08-04-2006, 05:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

P-82 hands down.
Was ready in time for use in combat.
But like many US aircraft it was not
used as other planes that were available
in huge numbers could do it's intended job.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ahm.. americans were using mosqitos, and they have tried to do something similar with twin mustang.

They failed. Mossie was in all aspects better then p82.

woofiedog
08-04-2006, 06:05 AM
Vacillator... Would have given an arm & a leg to have see those Bird's in flight... must of been a Great Show.

You wouldn't have a couple of Snap Shot's of the show by any chance? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

zeno303
08-04-2006, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 zeno303:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
WHIRLWIND!

... As soon as it gets ingame, that is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez, the Whirlwind might get my vote for "prettiest," but with those RR Peregrine engines, it was pretty much of a dog.

No it wasnt, it was infact faster than the Spit and Me109E down low http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very nice pix!

Performance on the deck in it's designated role as a "bomber escort fighter" didn't count for much. (And I doubt it was faster down low than a Spit LF VB.) It's top speed was similar to the early Spits (Is & IIs), but it was not as manueverable and, as a twin, was nuch more expensive to produce. The The Spit V was faster and the Spit IX blew right by the Whirlwind with its 885 hp engines.

Hence it's relegation to low level rhubarbs over the Continent. It was more suited to the low level bomber role, but was soon completely outclassed by the Mossy and the Typhoon.

As the war progressed the P-38 proved to be much more adaptable

Xiolablu3
08-04-2006, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I cant consider the Me-262 a good FIGHTER. Its ONLY 2 benifits were firepower and speed. Its limited range and poor engines really worked against it in any role other then pure defensive. What good is a fighter if its looking for a place to land the moment it enguages?

Do-335 was flown, but never proven. We cant say what it could of done since it did nothing for the war effort then gobble up a lot of money. All we know is it went fast, and had a lot of firepower. At least it had range over the 262.

Me-110 was a flying target even in 1939.

The P-38 all the way for the best twin fighter of WWII. Range, speed, firepower, armorment and a proven reccord to match any and all single engine fighters in combat.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cmon Gibbage, your post screams bias.

The P38 was no doubt a great twin engined fighter, but compared to the Me262, it was totally outdated.

Sure the P38 competes WELL with single engined fighters, but in some areas it was still lacking when put up against something like a Spitfire.

The P38 is a great plane, but its not a close in dogfighter, although it can do some things well in those aspects. A single engined fighter will be by nature much more nimble.

You can repeart the 'any nation can built a great fighter' as much as you want to try and make yourself feel better, but it will still be lacking in some areas, as you have to make compromises.

If you put up a Spitfire against a P38 or P51, you are goingt o find that the SPitfire holds most of the cards as a true dog-fighter, because it does not have to carry as much fuel and is not as big/heavy.
The truth is, a NAtion will make the fighter it needs, if you dont particualrly need a long range fighter, then they wont build one.

Russians were always close to their own front.
If the German fighters had drop tanks during the Battle OF Britian, they would have had enough range. They didnt need a long range fighter
Britian had the Mustang, no need for another long range fighter.

If they had needed one, no doubt they would have built one. They needed air superiority much more than range, as all of the above were often outnumbered.

P38 is great at lots of things, but I wouldnt say its a pure fighter, having two engines and being bigger than most fighters, will mean it takes longer to manouvre, somehting which a fighter needs badly. Compare a Sparrow and an Eagle, the Eagle is going to be much more clumsy compared to the little Sparrow, especially at manouvrability, the Sparrow can dodge and change direction much quiicker than the big Eagle. However the Eagle is much faster in a straight line.

Scen
08-04-2006, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I cant consider the Me-262 a good FIGHTER. Its ONLY 2 benifits were firepower and speed. Its limited range and poor engines really worked against it in any role other then pure defensive. What good is a fighter if its looking for a place to land the moment it enguages?

Do-335 was flown, but never proven. We cant say what it could of done since it did nothing for the war effort then gobble up a lot of money. All we know is it went fast, and had a lot of firepower. At least it had range over the 262.

Me-110 was a flying target even in 1939.

The P-38 all the way for the best twin fighter of WWII. Range, speed, firepower, armorment and a proven reccord to match any and all single engine fighters in combat.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cmon Gibbage, your post screams bias.

The P38 was no doubt a great twin engined fighter, but compared to the Me262, it was totally outdated.

Sure the P38 competes WELL with single engined fighters, but in some areas it was still lacking when put up against something like a Spitfire.

The P38 is a great plane, but its not a close in dogfighter, although it can do some things well in those aspects. A single engined fighter will be by nature much more nimble.

You can repeart the 'any nation can built a great fighter' as much as you want to try and make yourself feel better, but it will still be lacking in some areas, as you have to make compromises.

If you put up a Spitfire against a P38 or P51, you are goingt o find that the SPitfire holds most of the cards as a true dog-fighter, because it does not have to carry as much fuel and is not as big/heavy.
The truth is, a NAtion will make the fighter it needs, if you dont particualrly need a long range fighter, then they wont build one.

Russians were always close to their own front.
If the German fighters had drop tanks during the Battle OF Britian, they would have had enough range. They didnt need a long range fighter
Britian had the Mustang, no need for another long range fighter.

If they had needed one, no doubt they would have built one. They needed air superiority much more than range, as all of the above were often outnumbered.

P38 is great at lots of things, but I wouldnt say its a pure fighter, having two engines and being bigger than most fighters, will mean it takes longer to manouvre, somehting which a fighter needs badly. Compare a Sparrow and an Eagle, the Eagle is going to be much more clumsy compared to the little Sparrow, especially at manouvrability, the Sparrow can dodge and change direction much quiicker than the big Eagle. However the Eagle is much faster in a straight line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL and you don't have a Bias? Clearly you favor Spitfires. But that isn't the point right?


Last time I checked this thread was about "Twin-engined Fighters which is the best?" Not which is the best fighter.

The bottom line is when designing an airplane there are always and I mean always compromises. It depends upon the mission of the aircraft and what it's designed to do. The 38 has the combat record to prove is was better suited even against a pure dog fighter the Zeke. So there goes your idea about "manouvrability"

Vacillator
08-04-2006, 10:30 AM
Woofie

I do have some static pics but wasted my time trying to video the flying!

Here are some links to others pics, better than mine.

And yes it was a truly fantastic show, unbelievable.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/745...451038833#7451038833 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/7451038833?r=7451038833#7451038833)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/979...791099064#9791099064 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9791099064?r=9791099064#9791099064)

There are more around somewhere (methinks the other Flying Legends i.e. the website not the airshow).

HayateAce
08-04-2006, 11:27 AM
Pwnage ladies, pwnage.

Kocur_
08-04-2006, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Pwnage ladies, pwnage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean turbocharged, carring huge installations, supposedly high alt fighter, but unable to operate properly above 6km or even dive safely fast enough to catch anything not being a Zero (with 640kmh dive limit) and such BUT able to make really tight stall turns? Pwnage indeed...

Grue_
08-04-2006, 01:40 PM
P-38 was obviously the most successful WWII twin engined fighter.

But to say this about the 262:

"Its ONLY 2 benifits were firepower and speed."

Oh come on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
08-04-2006, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I cant consider the Me-262 a good FIGHTER. Its ONLY 2 benifits were firepower and speed. Its limited range and poor engines really worked against it in any role other then pure defensive. What good is a fighter if its looking for a place to land the moment it enguages?

Do-335 was flown, but never proven. We cant say what it could of done since it did nothing for the war effort then gobble up a lot of money. All we know is it went fast, and had a lot of firepower. At least it had range over the 262.

Me-110 was a flying target even in 1939.

The P-38 all the way for the best twin fighter of WWII. Range, speed, firepower, armorment and a proven reccord to match any and all single engine fighters in combat.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cmon Gibbage, your post screams bias.

The P38 was no doubt a great twin engined fighter, but compared to the Me262, it was totally outdated.

Sure the P38 competes WELL with single engined fighters, but in some areas it was still lacking when put up against something like a Spitfire.

The P38 is a great plane, but its not a close in dogfighter, although it can do some things well in those aspects. A single engined fighter will be by nature much more nimble.

You can repeart the 'any nation can built a great fighter' as much as you want to try and make yourself feel better, but it will still be lacking in some areas, as you have to make compromises.

If you put up a Spitfire against a P38 or P51, you are goingt o find that the SPitfire holds most of the cards as a true dog-fighter, because it does not have to carry as much fuel and is not as big/heavy.
The truth is, a NAtion will make the fighter it needs, if you dont particualrly need a long range fighter, then they wont build one.

Russians were always close to their own front.
If the German fighters had drop tanks during the Battle OF Britian, they would have had enough range. They didnt need a long range fighter
Britian had the Mustang, no need for another long range fighter.

If they had needed one, no doubt they would have built one. They needed air superiority much more than range, as all of the above were often outnumbered.

P38 is great at lots of things, but I wouldnt say its a pure fighter, having two engines and being bigger than most fighters, will mean it takes longer to manouvre, somehting which a fighter needs badly. Compare a Sparrow and an Eagle, the Eagle is going to be much more clumsy compared to the little Sparrow, especially at manouvrability, the Sparrow can dodge and change direction much quiicker than the big Eagle. However the Eagle is much faster in a straight line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL and you don't have a Bias? Clearly you favor Spitfires. But that isn't the point right?


Last time I checked this thread was about "Twin-engined Fighters which is the best?" Not which is the best fighter.

The bottom line is when designing an airplane there are always and I mean always compromises. It depends upon the mission of the aircraft and what it's designed to do. The 38 has the combat record to prove is was better suited even against a pure dog fighter the Zeke. So there goes your idea about "manouvrability" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont favour the Spitfire at all, its simply a better dogfighter, thats what I was trying to say.

The Me262 is much better fighter than the Spitfire.

Never mind if it was a thread about twin engined fighters, you were saying that the P38 could match any single engined fighter, which isnt true.

The P38 was great, but single engined fighters have advanatges over the twin engined P38, that was my point.

I was just reading about P38 tactics versus Zeros

'When compared with the Zero, the Lightning came off badly in terms of maneuverability at medium and low altitudes, but had a far higher top speed, rate of climb and operational ceiling and was much better armoured. When the P-38 tried to outturn a Zero at low altitudes, it usually ended up second best. However, when the unique attributes of the Lightning were used to best effect, the results were devastating. The best tactic was for the Lightnings to loiter at high altitudes and then dive down on Zero formations in a blaze of concentrated firepower, using the Lightning's impressive climbing rate to zoom back up out of harm's way. If this did not work, the wise Lightning pilot would then use his superior speed to make good his escape.'

Just what I expected.

Top_Gun_1_0_1
08-04-2006, 02:32 PM
ME-262 is the BEST Alright! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Col._King
08-04-2006, 02:58 PM
P-38L-5-LO !

Looking all in all, it was well suited for, and successfull in all the many roles it was used. So for sure the winner for the Best multirole twin engined fighter of WW2 goes to the Lightning.
It was projected as an Interceptor, but proved itself as a really great workhorse in a great variety of other roles, that were not intended for it at the beginning... The project was far ahead of its time, technologically speaking, and the results were first class.

On the other way, the Mosquito was born as a fast recce and bomber plane, and proved itself as a very good fighterbomber and nightfighter, too. The concept was different, but the results were outstanding, too.

The P-61 Black Widow was born as a Night fighter, and beside this role, it performed night ground attack strikes armed with rockets and bombs. It was really wonderfully manouvrable, and would give an excellent day fighter, too, if needed. But there were many other planes for that role, so it was kept for night ops.

The Bf.110 was born as a heavy day fighter and escort fighter, but proved unsatisfactory in that role, itself needing the escort of the 109s during the BoB. It partially redeemed itself in 1943 defending the Reich from bombers, and when it went nightfighting, it proved excellent in that specific role, expecially after it was equipped with RADAR.

The Me.262 was the first "serious" Jet fighter, and it was developed with in mind the defence role against enemy bombers. In this role it proved excellent. Not as manouvrable as a piston-engined plane, and having big problems with the unreliable jet engines (Jumo 004), it was an easy prey when caught at low speed during landing (in this conditions it was really a sitting duck with no chances. And even in combat against more manouvrable planes it had not so many chances of survival. Walter Novotny (250 + victories) was killed in an aerial fight with 357th FG Mustangs (and not by a Tempest while landing, as erroneously reported by Pierre Closterman in his book).
So the '262 can be considered very successfull in his intended role, that of a "Bomber-Zerstoerer", and was indeed very well suited for it, with its 4 x 20mm cannons and the R4M rocket packs.

The Do.335 was only at prototype evaluation stage, and never tested in combat. So every speculation is a mere theoryzing excercise. Germans were thinking about it as a new type of "Zerstoerer", finally suit for that role, and maybe a good Fighterbomber (capable of a good load, indeed) and maybe a well suited nightfighter in a two seat variant that actually reached prototype stage. All in all the performance was very promising. Speed capable of leaving behind a Tempest with emergency boost on, as related by Closterman himself.

The De Havilland Hornet was really a pureblood racing horse, in fact a smaller and lightened Mossie, with all the advantages, and it proved very well during its service, expecially in the hands of the Fleet Air Arm, operating from aircraft carriers during late Forties and early Fifties.

The Whirlwind,was a great plane, too, very modern design for its time, and would had a better career if not plagued by the poor reliability of the Rolls Royce Peregrines that powered it. Only two squadrons were equipped with it, and wrecked havoc in the ground strike role, during the operational service of the Whilwind, until they got the Typhoon.

The Tigercat was simply outstanding, but reached operational status too late, as was for the P-82 Twin Mustang. Both were intended at first as very long range escort fighters for the B-29 in the case the War in the Pacific would go in 1946. As they were not operational during the time we are speaking of, nor constructed in great number, they are in the contest only for the theoretical tech comparation.

By no mean I want to throw gasoline on an eventual polemic, but if we evaluate all the various aspects of what makes out from a plane an excellent plane, the best plane, we have to convein that the P-38 was the best one due to its caracteristics and success in all the roles it performed.
It was not the best in one specified role. There were better than it in one specific role, but in only that one.

Taken as a multirole, the P-38 was the "Best". Looking at the P-38 from this point of view, the fact that it was "the best" is umbeatable.

HayateAce
08-04-2006, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
You mean turbocharged, high alt fighter and able to make really tight stall turns? Pwnage indeed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your bitterness is spoiling my afternoon tea.

Kocur_
08-04-2006, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
You mean turbocharged, high alt fighter and able to make really tight stall turns? Pwnage indeed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your bitterness is spoiling my afternoon tea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Oh, drink up fast, since I actually wrote
"You mean turbocharged, carring huge installations, supposedly high alt fighter, but unable to operate properly above 6km or even dive safely fast enough to catch anything not being a Zero (with 640kmh dive limit) and such BUT able to make really tight stall turns? Pwnage indeed..."

ARCHIE_CALVERT
08-04-2006, 04:31 PM
Whirlwinds

Originally designed as Britain‚‚ā¨ôs first canon fighter, a contract was given to Westlands as a bonus for their Lysander aircraft‚‚ā¨¬¶

Further on, but still in the early pre prototype stage, it was decided that the Hurricane and eventually the Spitfire could be made to carry 20mm canon without the use of another engine, the project was nearly shut down then‚‚ā¨¬¶ But it was saved by an idea that it could be a fast PR aircraft. Westlands was asked to extend the Whirlwinds range‚‚ā¨¬¶ While this was going on it was calculated that the Peregrines would be somewhat out of breath above 15.000 feet and downright knackered at 30.000 as a consequence the order for 14 PR Whirlwinds and 4 spare airframes was again in doubt!

But as production at Westlands and Rolls-Royce for tooling of said Whirly and Peregrines was at such an advance stage, a cancellation at this point would mean the factories being idle, until tooling could be made for other a/c. The Air Ministry then decided to allow the production of 114 Whirlwind to save having to waste the materials and tooling of both airframe and available engines‚‚ā¨¬¶

Balls up from start to finish‚‚ā¨¬¶ Also because of it small size it was to light an airframe to allow it to develop much further. Putting Merlins in would mean redesigning the wing, resulting in more wing area, more weight, less speed‚‚ā¨¬¶ No improvement‚‚ā¨¬¶

So, the Whirlwind only came to be produced as it would be deemed to much of a waste of materials to scrap it outright..

ModelNo
08-04-2006, 09:11 PM
In this sim the best twin engine fighter is of courst the Gibbage-whine P-38. His incessant whining insured it could out manuever and roll all the single seaters that shot it to pieces in real life.

Von_Rat
08-05-2006, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ModelNo:
In this sim the best twin engine fighter is of courst the Gibbage-whine P-38. His incessant whining insured it could out manuever and roll all the single seaters that shot it to pieces in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


huh?????


i just checked my stats at warclouds. i have a 31 to 1 kill death ratio against the p38late.

i think its safe to say the p38 gets shot to pieces by single seat fighters in this game too.

Aaron_GT
08-05-2006, 02:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Putting Merlins in would mean </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would lead to the Welkin high altitude fighter, which was perfected just as the high altitude bombing threat against the UK vanished, and hence that was cancelled too. Westland were just desperately unlucky here. Saying that, if the Welkin had arrived a little earlier it might have been a competitor to the P-38 for high altitude, long range escort duties.

Xiolablu3
08-05-2006, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ModelNo:
In this sim the best twin engine fighter is of courst the Gibbage-whine P-38. His incessant whining insured it could out manuever and roll all the single seaters that shot it to pieces in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


huh?????


i just checked my stats at warclouds. i have a 31 to 1 kill death ratio against the p38late.

i think its safe to say the p38 gets shot to pieces by single seat fighters in this game too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a very good KD ratio versus the P38, I guess the Dora outclasses it, naturally the P38 would be up against more Antons than Doras.

On the servers I mosly play on P38s are up against their natural enemies which are 109G6/G10 and 190A's. They fare much better versus this opposition.

They are excellent planes for attacking the targets and then covering the incoming planes when up against their 'normal' enemies.

There is a great desert 1943 map with P38's/Spitfire V's/P40's/A20's vs 190A5/109G2/G6/Me110/He111, Stuka on Ukded2 where the P38 can win the map for the reds in a very short time if you take a fleet of P38's and blue are not protecting their targets well. EAch one drops thir bombs and fires their rockets then protects the incoming bombers. Great fun and the P38 is fantastic on that map.

I htink it all depends what opposition it is up against. Versus Doras and K4's with Mk108's it get pretty beat up as a pure dogfighter, but used as a fighter bomber versus the real Luftwaffe workhorses (rather than the 1000 or so made Dora and K4's) it does good, but use it as a fighter bomber, not a dogfighter.

F6_Ace
08-05-2006, 03:18 AM
I think Crump posted a report once where some German official (could even have been Galland) said that German fighters would attack the P38 in preference to other escorts. I also believe that a top US P-38 ace (McGuire?) was bagged in a *4 on 1* encounter with an Oscar.

'nuff said.

In the game, the P38 is the best twin engined prop fighter, particularly the L version where you can overcome the compression problem by judicious use of the airbrake. It's very easy to shake off 109s (especially, as they have no elevator control above walking pace) and 190s with this tactic.

Otherwise, the 262. Fly it "like a 190" and you are untouchable.

Other than that, the 'best' one is the Me110...because it looks mean, the cockpit is excellent and it has those little gauges on the engines that light up.

cawimmer430
08-05-2006, 03:59 AM
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9152/messerschmidtbf110g2northafrica01ve8.jpg

I am BIASED. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I love the BF-110, one of my favorite planes of World War II.

However, the P-38 probably takes the cake. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BSS_CUDA
08-05-2006, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ModelNo:
In this sim the best twin engine fighter is of courst the Gibbage-whine P-38. His incessant whining insured it could out manuever and roll all the single seaters that shot it to pieces in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Uhm the P-38 had a 4-1 K/D ratio in the ETO and even higher in the PTO. so much for getting shot to pieces IRL huh

BSS_CUDA
08-05-2006, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
I also believe that a top US P-38 ace (McGuire?) was bagged in a *4 on 1* encounter with an Oscar.

'nuff said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mcquire died because he was stupid cocky and arrogant, he broke all 3 of his own rules when he engaged an Oscar
1. he engaged with his tanks on.
2. he was below 300 MPH
3. he turned with it. ( which he did regularly with HUGE success )
also there are conflicting reports on how many IJA planes were there, some reports said 1 others said 2, and he was not shot down he crashed into the jungle trying to clear the 6 of another pilot

F19_Olli72
08-05-2006, 05:48 AM
Also add that the fate of one pilot doesnt show the abilities of the plane. Otto Kittel was shot down in his FW190 by an IL-2. What does that prove? Nothing except that maybe he made a mistake and/or was unlucky.

woofiedog
08-05-2006, 08:14 AM
Vacillator... Thank's for the links. Great photo's... must have missed that thread.

Xiolablu3
08-05-2006, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ModelNo:
In this sim the best twin engine fighter is of courst the Gibbage-whine P-38. His incessant whining insured it could out manuever and roll all the single seaters that shot it to pieces in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Uhm the P-38 had a 4-1 K/D ratio in the ETO and even higher in the PTO. so much for getting shot to pieces IRL huh </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Four to one??? Wow thats pretty impressive, are you sure? Where is this info from please?

Xiolablu3
08-05-2006, 08:37 AM
I have been reading about that Spitfire mkXIV vs P38 mock 'fight' where the P38 'won'

Apparantly the Spitfire pilot was simply going to show that the Spitfire could turn tighter and roll faster than the P38, but then the P38 pilot started treating like some big competition and risking his life over it, pulling wild manouvres where he nearly hit the ground.

The Spit pilot who was simply going to pull tight and outturn the p38 wasnt expecting this wild dangerous manouvring at all, and simply didnt see the point.

He was going to show its superior roll and turn rate and then talk to the pilots about it. He wasnt expecting a competition and decided not to waste his time trying to talk to these guys who were behaving more like his enemy than his ally. He simply flew home.

I will copy the full text out sometime. Its quite interesting.

PBNA-Boosher
08-05-2006, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
I also believe that a top US P-38 ace (McGuire?) was bagged in a *4 on 1* encounter with an Oscar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

McGuire (the second highest scoring ace, first was Maj. Richard Bong, who died in a P-80 accident) died in a result of his own instinctive quick action and momentary stupidity. When a comrade called out for help, he pulled excessive G's to maneuver to save him... at extremely low E and low alt., with full droptanks still attached. His plane stalled out and he crashed.

F6_Ace
08-05-2006, 09:56 AM
Yes, I've read the account; the post did involve a modicum of winding up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I've also posted a long time ago regarding McGuire (just couldn't remember his name) suggesting that is was arrogance that got him killed so I totally agree with the previous poster.

BSS_CUDA
08-05-2006, 09:57 AM
This site shows the number of aircraft that did not return to Britain after their combat missions- aircraft that did not return are aircraft confirmed shot down if by A2A or flak- these are the numbers that generate the 4:1 ratio http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

This site has the Overall losses (those lost to all causes whether they returned or not) kills and sorties. http://www.ww2guide.com/fighters.shtml

In the Med 113 P-38s were lost for 608 kills for a 5.32:1 ratio against the same aircraft.

if you use the Total kills 1771 to 1758 (all losses even noncombat losses) it's 1.01:1 if you use non returns (obviously shot down) it's 1771 to 451 or 3.92:1

The P-38 had 451 that did not return to Britain, the 1758 number is all P-38s lost to all causes training, ferrying, collisions, aircraft that returned with damage too great to repair and including, I belive, the "Lost Squadron" in Greenland (ferry loss of aircraft assigned to the 8th). BTW the P-47 had a similar ratio of aircraft returned but unable to fly again 1,043 non returns and 3,077 total lost while the P-51 had 2,201 non returns for 2,520 total - if you got hit in a P-51 you went down.

marco.datelmi
08-05-2006, 10:07 AM
Beaufighter..NF version http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
08-05-2006, 10:25 AM
It's a claim/loss ratio cuda is talking about.

zeno303
08-05-2006, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
I also believe that a top US P-38 ace (McGuire?) was bagged in a *4 on 1* encounter with an Oscar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

McGuire (the second highest scoring ace, first was Maj. Richard Bong, who died in a P-80 accident) died in a result of his own instinctive quick action and momentary stupidity. When a comrade called out for help, he pulled excessive G's to maneuver to save him... at extremely low E and low alt., with full droptanks still attached. His plane stalled out and he crashed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The most convincing account of this incident that I have read is in Dan Bauer's "American Fighter Aces," which includes accounts from actual participants, both American and Japanese.

1. The mission was not authorized by Command; it was a rogue fighter sweep cooked up by by Tommy M to find some easy pickings to run up his score and catch Bong for the record. By all acounts, McGuire was obsessed with surpassing Bong. He picked three experienced pilots to accompany him.

2. Half way to the projected happy hunting grounds, what appeared to be a lone Japanes plane (an Oskar) was spotted moving in and out of low cloud cover over an island. (In fact there were more Japanese in the area, but they were momentarily obscured.Unfortunately for McGuire, the Japanese pilots were also skilled and experienced.)

3. Rather than doing a quick recce to confirm true enemy strength, McGuire ordered an immediate attack.

4. He also ordered his flight to retain their drop tanks because they needed the fuel to continue on to their target rich ultimate destination. Of course, dropping tanks was SOP when engaging the more nimble Japanese fighters, especially at low alt, but that would have cut his mission short and limmited him to one victory.

5. A low altitude furball ensued and another Japanese plane soon became involved, a Ki-84 Frank. Tommy M was killed when his fuel laden 38 stalled out while attemping to turn with an attacking Japanese plane at very low altitude & speed. Maj Jack Ritmayer was also killed in the engagement. There were no japanese losses.

Treetop64
08-05-2006, 10:59 AM
Have to go with the P-38. Easy choice. Besides, considering how early it was developed, it was quite an advanced fighter for its time.

Kernow
08-05-2006, 12:04 PM
If you mean which is best as a fighter, or even as a fighter-bomber it's got to be the P-38. The loadout that thing can carry is awesome and it's got a spare engine if the groundfire takes one out. It looks cool too, although I think the 110 also looks good.

For bomber-destroying a 110 or Mossie would be a little better than a P-38. The 262 beats the P-38 on raw figures, but the engines are tricky to handle. Overall tho,' it's got to be the P-38.

Has no one mentioned the Pe-3 yet? The Pe-3bis has a good punch and is a good all-round heavy fighter, if a little light on bombload.

p1ngu666
08-05-2006, 04:22 PM
mossie shades the p38 for some ground attack work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
08-05-2006, 08:13 PM
Well the Whirlwind was operatoinal until 43
so they must have done a pretty good job.
anyway, all pilot accounts I ever read about the Whirly they have adored it