PDA

View Full Version : best ammerican fighter



maddog-66
06-15-2007, 10:16 PM
i think is the p-39 or p-63

Xiolablu3
06-15-2007, 11:38 PM
The thing about the P39 is that it suits the low level fighting which is done online.

In WW2 it was regarded as a pooor fighter by the RAF and the USAAF because it was useless up high and not so good at mid altitudes. Much like the RAF's Typhoon which was pressed into ground attack for the same reason, and also its toughness.

The RAF and USAAF wanted something which could fight at 15,000feet and higher such as the Spitfire, P47 or the P51.

It does well online because most of the fighting is done below 3000m (Thats low level for WW2)

My favourite would be the F4F/F6F or the P47. I like the P51 too, but that comes third for me. I prefer the extra firepower of the P47 and the stableness of the 'cats'. The P39 is OK but I tend to get myself into a spin far too often.

Akronnick
06-16-2007, 12:32 AM
My favorite is still the P-40

crazyivan1970
06-16-2007, 01:32 AM
P-40

Korolov1986
06-16-2007, 01:36 AM
I can't say best overall, but best in theatre:

PTO - USN Hellcat, hands down. Tough, rugged, long legged, easy to fly. Can't be beat when you need an easy to fly plane with good characteristics on a flat top.

Runner up - P-38 for USAAF. High speed, twin engines, incredible range, concentrated firepower. A real interceptor in the truest form.

CBI - P-51. Not available in strength, but still performance is much better than P-40.

Runner up - P-38. Only because there weren't many in the CBI and because they were earlier types.

MTO - P-38. Although not significant in numbers until mid to late war, the P-38 was one of the better offerings in the Med.

Runner up - P-51. Relatively late, but still made an impact when it came to the long trips from the Med to the southern axis states.

ETO - P-51. Long legged, available in vast numbers, and ideal for escort into rear areas.

Runner up - P-47. Powerful, big, and tough, close to the top spot but let down by the fact it's climb rate sucks and it's not as good when it comes to on the deck fighting. But still a significant impact in free-hunt missions.

Mysticpuma2003
06-16-2007, 01:54 AM
How about searching the forum for the answer to this question....which...we...have.........been.......a sked...................
............billions.............of.......times... ...zzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I guess 10 pages of replies. Any takers?

Korolov1986
06-16-2007, 01:57 AM
Best *American* fighter, Puma. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bewolf
06-16-2007, 02:38 AM
P-38, you heretics.

HellToupee
06-16-2007, 02:47 AM
http://www.31stfightergroup.com/31stReference/Pictures/Spit_Mk9_MX_307FS.jpg

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

Low_Flyer_MkVb
06-16-2007, 03:34 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif We have a winner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Next subject, please.

JG52Karaya-X
06-16-2007, 04:24 AM
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3536/ajn7mz.jpg

Nuff said!

DKoor
06-16-2007, 04:55 AM
I vote for Lockheed.

Phil_K
06-16-2007, 05:49 AM
Most people would say Joe Louis or Muhammed Ali.

Personally, purely on technique, I'd go for Sugar Ray Robinson.

Mysticpuma2003
06-16-2007, 06:12 AM
Ok I'll enter into the spirit, it has to be the P-47, robust, multi-tactical uses escort,fighter and ground pounder...and...it looks cool!

http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

ploughman
06-16-2007, 06:17 AM
I like the P-47, looks like Homer Simpson, punches like George Foreman.

horseback
06-16-2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Phil_K:
Most people would say Joe Louis or Muhammed Ali.

Personally, purely on technique, I'd go for Sugar Ray Robinson. Ali was amazing before he was banned, but I've always been partial to Sugar Ray Leonard.

Best American fighter aircraft has me awarding a tie to the Hellcat and the Mustang, because they allowed their pilots to become combat effective almost immediately. Every other fighter seems to have demanded a noticeable 'breaking in' period, even for combat veterans.

cheers

horseback

woofiedog
06-16-2007, 06:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://marines.centreconnect.org/vmf_112/images/corsair.jpg

R_Target
06-16-2007, 06:40 AM
http://fighter-collection.com/images/hellcat1.jpg

VW-IceFire
06-16-2007, 07:38 AM
Thats a tough one...all of the American fighters are pretty good (except the Buffalo) in their respective years. Almost all of them are rock solid for being able to absorb damage and keep the pilot safe.

I'd say Mustang and Hellcat or Corsair as best American fighter overall. The others have advantages too. What really impresses me about American fighters that most of the other nations don't have is that almost all of them are good fighters and double as effective fighter-bombers. The Corsair, Hellcat, Thunderbolt, Lightning, and even the Mustang have a fair bit of ground attack capability. I'd say all of those have more ability than even the purpose built FW190F-8. Plus they have significantly more range.

War winners to be sure.

Phil_K
06-16-2007, 07:56 AM
Yeah I agree. The Americans more than anyone understood that a plane should be a real war machine.

Even as a non-Merkan, I think they made the best planes of the war. No contest, really.

Cajun76
06-16-2007, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I like the P-47, looks like Homer Simpson, punches like George Foreman.

I been thinking about a new sig... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

tigertalon
06-16-2007, 08:30 AM
Define "best".

If "best" means doing a good job preventing own pilot to recover from flat spin, P-39 wins hands down.

Cajun76
06-16-2007, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
http://www.31stfightergroup.com/31stReference/Pictures/Spit_Mk9_MX_307FS.jpg

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

Ugh! Someone vandalized those stars!

drose01
06-16-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by maddog-66:
i think is the p-39 or p-63
Sounds like the original poster may be asking what is the best American fighter in IL2.

You can make a strong case that he is right.

VW-IceFire
06-16-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by maddog-66:
i think is the p-39 or p-63
Sounds like the original poster may be asking what is the best American fighter in IL2.

You can make a strong case that he is right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those two are good aircraft but only in certain situations. Even the P-63 for all of its performance feels somewhat sluggish once you start climbing up in altitude. Depends on what best is ...best overall is not the P-63...but best low level tactical fighter could almost certainly be the P-63.

As far as American planes go in a arcade dogfight server where the average altitude is 500 meters...then yes...I have no problems with saying the P-39 or P-63 is the best plane in this type of situation.

TheGozr
06-16-2007, 11:36 AM
P63 and 39

PBNA-Boosher
06-16-2007, 12:33 PM
P-40 for sure!

Warrington_Wolf
06-16-2007, 03:56 PM
I personally love the P-38, it has an impressive bomb load, it can carry a good amount of rockets and it has a devastating cannon and gun combo. It cannot turn with most adversaries but it has a good turn of speed, and the comfort of two engines is good too.
I heard somewhere that the F-15 is the best American fighter of all time with 100 kills to 0 combat losses, perhaps some jet jocks can shed some light on this.

FPSOLKOR
06-16-2007, 04:23 PM
During WWII? I'd go for B-17 over Europe and B-29 over Pacific.

Speaking of f-15? Done some Googling:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/fakemig.htm
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-4994.html

19-03-1981
F-15 repordely heavily damaged by a bird strike;

29-06-1981 or 29-07-1981 (there are different reports, all of them from Russian sources)
F-15 of the 133 Sqn shot down by the MiG-25PD of the "T.4-Squadron" over Lebanon;

09-06-1982
F-15D damaged by R-60, fired from MiG-21bis flown by Capt. Kharah; claim confirmed by Israeli sources, the plane (which downed four other Syrian aircraft just minutes before) supposedly landed safely;

09-06-1982 according to Russian sources, another F-15A was shot down during the same combat, also to R-60 and MiG-21bis (IMHO, the R-60 has not enough power to shot down a plane like F-15, except it hits the fuel tank);

01-05-1983 F-15D "957" collided with A-4H during DACM. Both crews ejected;

04-10-1983 Russian sources claim, that on this date two F-15As were shot down by MiG-23MLs newly delivered to Syria;

??-??-1983 During a discussion in US Congress, in 1988, it was said that one of Israeli F-15s was lost in this year. It remains unclear if the mentioned F-15D was meaned or any other one;

02-04-1987 F-15 fell into spin during DACM. Maj. Iftah More was killed;

15-08-1988 two F-15As of the 133 Sqn collided during DACM. Lt.Col. Ram Caller and the CO of the 133 Sqn were both killed;

04-01-1991 Iraqi TV claimed that Iraqi defences have shot down an Israeli F-15 in the H-3 area. Some reports explain about Israeli F-15s, equipped with recce-pods, being in operation over western Iraq in early 1991;

??-04-1994 F-15A "802/Panther" (2-MiG-kills) severely damaged in emergency landing. Pilot OK. Repaired at a cost of USD 17 Million;

10-08-1995 F-15D "965" crashed, fate of the crew unknown;

19-01-1997 F-15B "733" crashed in southern Israel after entering spin. Both crew ejected safely;

01-03-1998 F-15D "142" (USAF 73-0112) crashed at Mt. Aibal Nablus. Maj. Kolton and Capt. Manor were killed;

FPSOLKOR
06-16-2007, 04:42 PM
This one table i found also looks interesting

http://members.tripod.com/IvanLucky/table.htm

Table of killed/captured pilots/soldiers during the aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

No. Day Time Location
Type of aircraft and number of dead/captured pilots/soldiers
1. 26.03. 17:20 village Donja Trnova, 15km southwest of Bijeljina, Republic of Srpska American F-15E. Crew (2) was killed. The plane was shot down by a MiG-21.
2. 27.03. around 1:00 Mt. Maljen German Tornado. Crew (2) ejected and landed in the vicinity of the village Konjevici, near Cacak, where they were captured
3. 27.03. around 3:20 area between Vrutak and Kremna, near Uzice SFOR helicopter with 22 soldiers on board. After a short gunfight with the Yugoslav infantry unit, helicopter was destroyed by Strela-2M portable SAM. No survivors.
4. 28.03. 2:50 Zabrdje, near Bijeljina Most probably an American F-15. Pilot was killed. Some sources say that it was in fact an F-117!
5. 3:00 near Bijeljina SFOR helicopter HH-60 Pave Hawk with 12 soldiers on board. Only two crew members survived
6. 29.03. 1:30 near Pale, Republic of Srpska Some sources say that it was either F-15 or F-16, American. Pilot ejected but found dead later on. His neck was broken
7. 30.03. around 1:00 near Virpazar British Harrier. Pilot ejected but was soon captured
8. 31.03. 18:00 Rescue helicopter with 20 commandos on board
9. 22:45 Mt. Tara NATO rescue helicopter CH-53 with 25 commandos. No survivors
10. 31.03. Sirig, north of Novi Sad German Tornado. Crew (2) ejected and captured shortly after that
11. 01.04. 1:00 Mt. Tara NATO (possibly SFOR) helicopter CH-53 Stallion with 25 crew members. No survivors
12. 03.04. 19:45 Novi Sad Aircraft damaged during the attack on Novi Sad's bridge "Most Slobode". Airplane crashed near Stara Pazova. Pilot captured
13. 05.04. 21:00 Mt. Fruska Gora One NATO plane downed. Pilot ejected near 'Pobeda' factory and was soon captured. Most likely F-117A
14. 20:00 Novi Sad During the attack on Novi Sad's "Zezelj" bridge, one German Tornado was shot down. Crew (2) ejected and was captured shortly after
15. 06.04. 11:10 Mt. Skopska Crna Gora Two NATO SAR helicopters with 40 commandos on board. No survivors
16. after midnight Yugoslav-Albanian border (Montenegro) NATO helicopter with 20 soldiers and one rescued pilot on board. No survivors
17. 07.04. before midnight near Novi Sad Belgian F-16D. 42 year old pilot and 28 years old female co-pilot captured. Plane was shot down by Aleksandar Sunjka with 20mm AAA
18. 08.04. after midnight near Nis German Tornado. Crew (2) captured
19. 12.04. 21:30 village Osmaci, near Tuzla British Sea Harrier. Pilot killed. Aircraft was hit over Zrenjanin, where it jettisoned its fuel tanks
20. 13.04. after midnight near Srbinje (ex Foca), Bosnia Pilot killed
21. 14.04. 10:00* Sirig, north of Novi Sad Aircraft crashed near Kamendin agronomic well. Pilot ejected and captured
22. 15.04. 19:35 Podgorica French Mirage 2000. Airplane shot down by Lt. Zdravko Bankovic, with L70 Bofors. Plane crashed on Rumija mountain. Pilot ejected and captured shortly after. According to some other info, plane was shot own by Lt. Goran Ratkovic
23. 19:45 near Podgorica One NATO aircraft shot down by soldier Predrag Dzonic with Strela-2M portable SAM. Pilot ejected and landed in the village of Kruse where he was captured
24. 17.04. 14:30 Urosevac Airplane crashed 4 km into Macedonian territory, near the village Tanusevci. Pilot killed
25. 22.04. 1:20 Lipovica, near Belgrade Rescue helicopter. Crew (?) killed, helicopter captured
26. 24.04. Mt. Kukavica, near Leskovac Pilot captured
27. 29.04. 11:15 Samokov, 40 km southwest of Skopje According to stories of eyewitnesses, the crew of two was found carbonized
28. 02.05. 12:15 Umka, near Belgrade According to eyewitnesses, two parachutes seen in the sky. From reliable sources, one pilot, an American, around 30-years old was captured in Mostanica, after 2 hours of pursuit. He was on a recon mission to photograph a bridge in Ostruznica
12:20
29. 05.05. morning 75 km northeast of Tirana AH-64 Apache. Pilot and gunner killed. NATO's classified report cited a SAM hit as a possible reason for the crash
30. 07.05. between
3:43 and 4:30 area around Nis One plane crashed near Leskovac. Reports say that captured pilot was Canadian (probably CF-18 Hornet)
31. 13.05. around 5:00 Rakovica, near Belgrade Rescue helicopter captured. 17 soldiers killed, 3 captured
32. 13.05. 14:23 Stara Pazova One French Mirage (probably Mirage 2000) shot sown. Pilot captured
33. 17.05. 15:30 area between Brestovik and Smederevo One French Mirage 2000 that crashed on a highway Belgrade-Obrenovac. Pilot ejected and captured shortly after
34. 20.05. 4:00 Mt. Cer, southwest of Sabac One B-52H Stratofortress shot down along with its entire crew (5)
35. 28.05. 0:50 Nis Aircraft crashed several kilometers northwest of Nis. Pilot killed
36. 29.05. 15:45 Nis Aircraft hit over the city. Plane headed for Sicevo, east of Nis but exploded on route. Pilot killed
37. 30.05. 1:45 south of Nis F/A-18 Hornet. Pilot killed
38. 30.05. 1:45 south of Nis F/A-18 hornet. Pilot ejected and was captured near Zitni Potok, south of Prokuplje

Warrington_Wolf
06-16-2007, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
During WWII? I'd go for B-17 over Europe and B-29 over Pacific.

Speaking of f-15? Done some Googling:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/fakemig.htm
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-4994.html

19-03-1981
F-15 repordely heavily damaged by a bird strike;

29-06-1981 or 29-07-1981 (there are different reports, all of them from Russian sources)
F-15 of the 133 Sqn shot down by the MiG-25PD of the "T.4-Squadron" over Lebanon;

09-06-1982
F-15D damaged by R-60, fired from MiG-21bis flown by Capt. Kharah; claim confirmed by Israeli sources, the plane (which downed four other Syrian aircraft just minutes before) supposedly landed safely;

09-06-1982 according to Russian sources, another F-15A was shot down during the same combat, also to R-60 and MiG-21bis (IMHO, the R-60 has not enough power to shot down a plane like F-15, except it hits the fuel tank);

01-05-1983 F-15D "957" collided with A-4H during DACM. Both crews ejected;

04-10-1983 Russian sources claim, that on this date two F-15As were shot down by MiG-23MLs newly delivered to Syria;

??-??-1983 During a discussion in US Congress, in 1988, it was said that one of Israeli F-15s was lost in this year. It remains unclear if the mentioned F-15D was meaned or any other one;

02-04-1987 F-15 fell into spin during DACM. Maj. Iftah More was killed;

15-08-1988 two F-15As of the 133 Sqn collided during DACM. Lt.Col. Ram Caller and the CO of the 133 Sqn were both killed;

04-01-1991 Iraqi TV claimed that Iraqi defences have shot down an Israeli F-15 in the H-3 area. Some reports explain about Israeli F-15s, equipped with recce-pods, being in operation over western Iraq in early 1991;

??-04-1994 F-15A "802/Panther" (2-MiG-kills) severely damaged in emergency landing. Pilot OK. Repaired at a cost of USD 17 Million;

10-08-1995 F-15D "965" crashed, fate of the crew unknown;

19-01-1997 F-15B "733" crashed in southern Israel after entering spin. Both crew ejected safely;

01-03-1998 F-15D "142" (USAF 73-0112) crashed at Mt. Aibal Nablus. Maj. Kolton and Capt. Manor were killed;
I know that F-15s have been written off and that pilots have been killed but I didn't realise that any had been lost due to enemy action. The article that I read just said that the F-15 had zero combat losses, I took this to mean that no enemy has shot one down.

FPSOLKOR
06-16-2007, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Warrington_Wolf:

I know that F-15s have been written off and that pilots have been killed but I didn't realise that any had been lost due to enemy action. The article that I read just said that the F-15 had zero combat losses, I took this to mean that no enemy has shot one down.
Not sure if it is the same article that i read, but it was told there that no F-15 E(!) were ever lost to enemy action and no other types of F-15 were ever shot down in AA fights. I can't confirm or negate this article - not my area of interest...

More recent losses: U.S. F-15 jet is shot down near Tikrit, and two crew members are missing. Apr.6.2003
April 7, 2003 - F-15E 88-1694/SJ of 4th FW/333rd FS shot down, both the pilot and Weapon Systems Officer (WSO) killed. Quite possible it's the same plane with shifted date.

25.03.99 - 01:00 - Sarajevo, Bosnia (Rajlovac airfield)
USAF F-15E damaged in dogfight with MiG-21. Landed at Sarajevo airfield spewing thick smoke. Confirmed by NATO. The incident was confirmed by LtCdr Sheena Thomson of SFOR during a joint NATO-SFOR press conference on 03-25-99.

26.03.99 - 17:20 - village Donja Trnova, 15km southwest of Bijeljina, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia
USAF F-15E. Crew was killed. The plane was hit by an air-to-air missile near Lazarevac, fired by Slobodan Peric flying MiG-29A.

06.04.99 - 23:37 - Vozdovac, Belgrade
Dogfight between Yugoslav Mig-21 and US F-15. F-15 crashed near Avala mountain. Confirmed by an eyewitness

25.04.99 - Sarajevo, Bosnia (Rajlovac airfield)
According to Air Forces Monthly and confirmed by NATO, one USAF F-15 made an emergency landing escorted by another F-15, due to a faulty hydraulic pump (possibly caused by SAM hit).


This came from here (If i remember correctly no F-15 losses were admitted by US during Desert Storm):
http://www.leyden.com/gulfwar/casualties.html
Air Force Major Thomas F. Koritz, 37 of Rochelle. Listed as MIA on Jan. 18. Changed to KIA on March 22. Shot down in an F-15 over Iraq.
Air Force Major Donnie R. Holland, 42 of Bastrop. Listed as MIA on Jan 18. Changed to KIA on March 22. His F-15 was shot down over Iraq. He is the father of 5 children.

Just found another interesting article on Yugoslavia (I hope I won't get banned for offtopic).

http://www.warinfo.org.yu/natodown.html

Update: Japanese F-15 losses

Japan has purchased and produced a total of 223 air-to-air F-15 known as the F-15J, most of which were assembled in Japan from largely indigenously manufactured sub-assemblies and equipment. The JASDF acquired 203 single-seat F-15Js and 20 tandem-seat F-15DJs. The F-15J is identical to the F-15C aside from some avionics changes.

As 0f 2003 a total of 10 F-15s had been lost due to mishaps, reducing the total inventory to 213 aircraft [SOURCE], for an attrition rate of roughly one every two years. On 20 October 1983 an F-15DJ crashed into the Pacific Ocean 110 miles E of Nyutabaru (RJFN), Japan. On 13 March 1987 an F-15J crashed into the sea 100 miles E of Hyakuri (RJAH), Japan. On 29 June 1988 a pair of F-15Js crashed into Sea of Japan, after collision with wingman F-15J. An F-15J was lost on 26 January 1990, and another on 2 July 1990. On 13 December 1991 an F-15DJ crashed during the approach of Komatsu AB (RJOP), Japan. On 27 October 1992 an F-15J crashed 45 miles NE of Tokyo, Japan into Pacific Ocean. On 6 October 1993 an F-15DJ crashed into the Sea of the coast of Northern Japan. On 6 October 1995 an F-15J was supposed to be burnt out after a failed take off of Komatsu AB (RJOP), Japan. On 22 November 1995 an F-15J crashed after Cpt. Higuchi Tatsumi was shot down by an AIM-9L sidewinder fired by another JASDF F-15 flown by Cpt. Hino Junya during air-to-air combat training, he called 'Safe' when firing for the 'Kill' Tatsumi ejected and was picked up safe.

carguy_
06-16-2007, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
In WW2 it was regarded as a pooor fighter by the RAF and the USAAF because it was useless up high and not so good at mid altitudes. Much like the RAF's Typhoon which was pressed into ground attack for the same reason, and also its toughness.

The lend lease P39 were heavily modified by the Russians,particulary making the aircraft lighter.

The lighter P39 was well suited for eastern front.If the mutual data in IL2 is as far as 70% correct,the plane was really the fighter that made the job prior to the production of the La5.The modern airframe surely influenced the Soviet fighter doctrine later on.

Funny thing bout this aircraft ingame,that the .30cal it is armed with (wings) represents the very thing .50cal users always wished for.4x.30cal more practical than 6x.50cal is a little weird I`d say.

BillyTheKid_22
06-16-2007, 05:17 PM
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Duxford2002/Flypasts/KittyhawkCorsairSpitfireMustangFromUnderneath.jpg



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

Snow_Wolf_
06-16-2007, 06:14 PM
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/photorelease/q4/high_res/dvd-226-5.jpg

This one Just the shape tells you it the best

MOH_MADMAN
06-16-2007, 06:29 PM
Muhammed Ali

"Fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee"



MAD

HuninMunin
06-16-2007, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3536/ajn7mz.jpg

Nuff said!

http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Korolov1986
06-16-2007, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3536/ajn7mz.jpg

Nuff said!

Hey, you can't do that. A-26 is a bomber, not a fighter!!!

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

RAZORBACK-47
06-16-2007, 11:02 PM
The P-47 with paddle blade prop could outclimb spit IX.

RAZORBACK-47
06-16-2007, 11:11 PM
Go read "Thunderbolt" by Robert S Johnson. The P-47 was the real deal.

heywooood
06-17-2007, 12:03 AM
Snow Wolf - where did you get that photo?

Xiolablu3
06-17-2007, 12:50 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 Xiolablu3:
In WW2 it was regarded as a pooor fighter by the RAF and the USAAF because it was useless up high and not so good at mid altitudes. Much like the RAF's Typhoon which was pressed into ground attack for the same reason, and also its toughness.

The lend lease P39 were heavily modified by the Russians,particulary making the aircraft lighter.

The lighter P39 was well suited for eastern front.If the mutual data in IL2 is as far as 70% correct,the plane was really the fighter that made the job prior to the production of the La5.The modern airframe surely influenced the Soviet fighter doctrine later on.

Funny thing bout this aircraft ingame,that the .30cal it is armed with (wings) represents the very thing .50cal users always wished for.4x.30cal more practical than 6x.50cal is a little weird I`d say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I havent noticed any difference, mate.

I agree about the P39 being useful on the RUssian front where the fighting was much lower and more tied to the ground war than in the West.

By the way, did you ever get you MS FF Pro working?

I may have found out why if oyu are still interested. Do you have an Nforce motherboard?

ImpStarDuece
06-17-2007, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
The P-47 with paddle blade prop could outclimb spit IX.

In what context, zoom climb or sustained climb?

If your talking about zoom climb, then yes, it could.

If your talking about sustained climb, then no, it could not. Even the more powerful P-47M couldn't outclimb the Spitfire Mk IX, unless it was above 30,000 feet.

The-Pizza-Man
06-17-2007, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
The P-47 with paddle blade prop could outclimb spit IX.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

RAZORBACK-47
06-17-2007, 12:22 PM
From the book "Thunderbolt" Johnson says "Never again did a Fw-190 or a Me-109 outclimb me in the Thunderbolt.The new prop was worth 1,000 horsepower, and then some. Later i had the opportunity to mix it up with a spit 9b, the same model that had flashed past me in a climb. This time the tables were reversed;I was astonished as we both poured the coal to our fighters, and the Thunderbolt just ran away from the spit."

stalkervision
06-17-2007, 12:30 PM
best american fighter? The Corsair without a doubt.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

na85
06-17-2007, 02:04 PM
Agree. I can't think of many other American types that carry enough ordnance to sink a ship in one pass and then dogfight effectively afterwards.

stalkervision
06-17-2007, 02:07 PM
The corsair is a really excellent design. It just has everything going for it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

mortoma
06-17-2007, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Thats a tough one...all of the American fighters are pretty good (except the Buffalo) in their respective years. Almost all of them are rock solid for being able to absorb damage and keep the pilot safe.

I'd say Mustang and Hellcat or Corsair as best American fighter overall. The others have advantages too. What really impresses me about American fighters that most of the other nations don't have is that almost all of them are good fighters and double as effective fighter-bombers. The Corsair, Hellcat, Thunderbolt, Lightning, and even the Mustang have a fair bit of ground attack capability. I'd say all of those have more ability than even the purpose built FW190F-8. Plus they have significantly more range.

War winners to be sure. Funny, Pappy Boyington felt that the Buffalo was both under-rated and under utilized. He thought that it was a good fighter if flown correctly. It got a bad rap early in the war because of losses from inexperienced pilots getting themselves shot down. Similar thing happened to Airacobra and P-40. They were all far better than thought. By the time other American fighters came out, most pilots had better skills, thus making the newer fighters seem much better. This was not the case in fact.

Daiichidoku
06-17-2007, 02:44 PM
new best

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/20202cs.jpg

DKoor
06-17-2007, 03:00 PM
Out Blitz the Blitzer .... RoFL!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

He he.... so... have we came to the conclusion that the P-38 was the best yet?
That fighter in comparison to the others was like comparing color TV Vs B/W TV.

The only drawback was the price.

A fighter out of this world......

Flash Gordon: "P-38 is new best!"


.

Korolov1986
06-17-2007, 03:09 PM
As has already been mentioned, in the case of the P-40, P-39, and Buffalo, the problem was poor altitude performance. Against an incoming enemy raid at 25,000ft, they had insufficient capability to intercept that raid as opposed to the more modern planes with proper high altitude equipment. Let's also not forget their range was poor compared to the modern aircraft.

Take the USAAF entries, for example - P-39 vs P-38. The P-38F is more than 50MPH faster than the P-39D, with a range almost three times the distance the P-39D could go. The P-38 was also better armed - 4x50, 1x20mm beats 2x50, a poor 37mm, and 4 30cals, especially against lightweight, nimble aircraft as encountered in the pacific. Although the P-38 didn't do well in the ETO, it was used there as opposed to the P-39 which was considered unfit for the conditions in that region. Let's not even touch on the P-40.

The end result though is that these three USAAF aircraft were radically different in concept and what they aimed to do. Against a common foe such as the Oscar and Zeke, the strategies used to defeat such aircraft gives the P-38 a clear advantage over both the P-39 and P-40. You want an aircraft that can haul *** from 25kft, deliver a crushing blow, and zoom back up - which neither the P-39 or P-40 could do with any efficiency compared to the P-38.

When you get to the ETO, it's a different fight altogether. There, you need something that goes like hell at 25kft and can keep it up without getting bogged down by poor altitude performance and range limits. Enter the P-47 and P-51 - which neither the P-40 or the P-39 can hold a candle to.

Taken in the context of a low level tactical air war, the P-39 and P-40 become much better, but thats where their usefulness ends.

In terms of the Navy planes, there's no contest there that the F4U and F6F absolutely blew away both the F2A and F4F in performance characteristics. There's no comparing them.

The end result is that while you can take a poor performing plane and make it work (Flying Tigers and P-40 for example), there are limitations to what you can do with a certain piece of technology, and it inhibits your ability to fight your enemy because you have to rely on getting the right tactical position with the technology you have.

And I gotta disagree with the Corsair fans here, those poor characteristics like sudden wingover and poor over the nose view doesn't hold a candle to a well-balanced, easy to fly plane such as the Hellcat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
06-17-2007, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
From the book "Thunderbolt" Johnson says "Never again did a Fw-190 or a Me-109 outclimb me in the Thunderbolt.The new prop was worth 1,000 horsepower, and then some. Later i had the opportunity to mix it up with a spit 9b, the same model that had flashed past me in a climb. This time the tables were reversed;I was astonished as we both poured the coal to our fighters, and the Thunderbolt just ran away from the spit."


I know ! Why would a plane with half the weight and 1800 hp be a better climber than the Jug ??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I guess the laws of physics dont apply to certain aircraft types.

Even the Tempest, which was a fat ba*tard could outclimb the jug (at its height range) let alone a fighter half the size.

Korolov1986
06-17-2007, 03:47 PM
Let's not forget a lot of Tbolts were souped up - it's not outside the realm of possibility if the Spit wasn't pouring on full power with maximum possible boost, as opposed to a Tbolt doing some 2,300hp with polished skin, etc.

Phil_K
06-17-2007, 03:48 PM
The propellor had jets attached to the tips.

Obviously.

mynameisroland
06-17-2007, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Let's not forget a lot of Tbolts were souped up - it's not outside the realm of possibility if the Spit wasn't pouring on full power with maximum possible boost, as opposed to a Tbolt doing some 2,300hp with polished skin, etc.

A Cessna with its fixed under carriage and 120 hp could outclimb a spitfire if the spitfire wasnt piling on the coals.

Korolov1986
06-17-2007, 04:58 PM
Yup, that's my point.

RAZORBACK-47
06-17-2007, 05:39 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 RAZORBACK-47:
From the book "Thunderbolt" Johnson says "Never again did a Fw-190 or a Me-109 outclimb me in the Thunderbolt.The new prop was worth 1,000 horsepower, and then some. Later i had the opportunity to mix it up with a spit 9b, the same model that had flashed past me in a climb. This time the tables were reversed;I was astonished as we both poured the coal to our fighters, and the Thunderbolt just ran away from the spit."


I know ! Why would a plane with half the weight and 1800 hp be a better climber than the Jug ??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I guess the laws of physics dont apply to certain aircraft types.

Even the Tempest, which was a fat ba*tard could outclimb the jug (at its height range) let alone a fighter half the size. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because a P-47 Could Zoom climb. Thats how the spit was left in the dust. Johnson flew both aircraft, but then again so have you- Right???
In a game

DKoor
06-17-2007, 05:47 PM
That's all nice & fine, but reality is - start from the 1,000m same speed - and see who gets to the 3,000m first.

The ac who does it first and make a separation is a better in climb (preferably does the climb at higher speed). For that particular alt.

I don't understand some stuff here at all.

Sometimes it feels like we all write different language on this board.

First it is - I said this, then no I meant that.

mortoma
06-17-2007, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
As has already been mentioned, in the case of the P-40, P-39, and Buffalo, the problem was poor altitude performance. Against an incoming enemy raid at 25,000ft, they had insufficient capability to intercept that raid as opposed to the more modern planes with proper high altitude equipment. Let's also not forget their range was poor compared to the modern aircraft.

Take the USAAF entries, for example - P-39 vs P-38. The P-38F is more than 50MPH faster than the P-39D, with a range almost three times the distance the P-39D could go. The P-38 was also better armed - 4x50, 1x20mm beats 2x50, a poor 37mm, and 4 30cals, especially against lightweight, nimble aircraft as encountered in the pacific. Although the P-38 didn't do well in the ETO, it was used there as opposed to the P-39 which was considered unfit for the conditions in that region. Let's not even touch on the P-40.

The end result though is that these three USAAF aircraft were radically different in concept and what they aimed to do. Against a common foe such as the Oscar and Zeke, the strategies used to defeat such aircraft gives the P-38 a clear advantage over both the P-39 and P-40. You want an aircraft that can haul *** from 25kft, deliver a crushing blow, and zoom back up - which neither the P-39 or P-40 could do with any efficiency compared to the P-38.

When you get to the ETO, it's a different fight altogether. There, you need something that goes like hell at 25kft and can keep it up without getting bogged down by poor altitude performance and range limits. Enter the P-47 and P-51 - which neither the P-40 or the P-39 can hold a candle to.

Taken in the context of a low level tactical air war, the P-39 and P-40 become much better, but thats where their usefulness ends.

In terms of the Navy planes, there's no contest there that the F4U and F6F absolutely blew away both the F2A and F4F in performance characteristics. There's no comparing them.

The end result is that while you can take a poor performing plane and make it work (Flying Tigers and P-40 for example), there are limitations to what you can do with a certain piece of technology, and it inhibits your ability to fight your enemy because you have to rely on getting the right tactical position with the technology you have.

And I gotta disagree with the Corsair fans here, those poor characteristics like sudden wingover and poor over the nose view doesn't hold a candle to a well-balanced, easy to fly plane such as the Hellcat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif So was Boyington just too drunk when he commented about the Buffalo being better than it was given credit for?? Maybe he didn't know his planes as well as modern sim pilots?? Also I don't think the air war in the Pacific was a really high altitude war, not until the last part when the B-29s came into service. It seems like it was more low altitude to mid altitude until near the the end of 44.

HellToupee
06-17-2007, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
Because a P-47 Could Zoom climb. Thats how the spit was left in the dust. Johnson flew both aircraft, but then again so have you- Right???
In a game

He never flew a spitfire all he flew was the 47. He also says things like no 190 could outroll him etc, while might have been the case its not because the 47 rolls faster. Climbing was just not a strong point of the 47, not even the boosted models outclimbed the spit.

RAZORBACK-47
06-17-2007, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
Because a P-47 Could Zoom climb. Thats how the spit was left in the dust. Johnson flew both aircraft, but then again so have you- Right???
In a game

He never flew a spitfire all he flew was the 47. He also says things like no 190 could outroll him etc, while might have been the case its not because the 47 rolls faster. Climbing was just not a strong point of the 47, not even the boosted models outclimbed the spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He TEST flew the the spitfire V and IX. Are you saying the Fw-190 rolls faster than the P-47?

VW-IceFire
06-17-2007, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
Because a P-47 Could Zoom climb. Thats how the spit was left in the dust. Johnson flew both aircraft, but then again so have you- Right???
In a game

He never flew a spitfire all he flew was the 47. He also says things like no 190 could outroll him etc, while might have been the case its not because the 47 rolls faster. Climbing was just not a strong point of the 47, not even the boosted models outclimbed the spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He TEST flew the the spitfire V and IX. Are you saying the Fw-190 rolls faster than the P-47? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He'd have a pretty good leg to stand on...although the P-47's roll rate is quite impressive (studied it a fair bit when we were trying to get Oleg to correct that back in the 1.01 days) the FW190 has it beat. It has pretty much all fighters beat for raw roll rate on the whole.

Xiolablu3
06-17-2007, 09:25 PM
Are you guys talking about RAF pilot Johnnie Johnson?

He flew SPitfires during WW2 and possibly test flew P47's.

He is the highest Allied scorer IIRC

HellToupee
06-17-2007, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Are you guys talking about RAF pilot Johnnie Johnson?

He flew SPitfires during WW2 and possibly test flew P47's.

He is the highest Allied scorer IIRC

robert johnson, johnnie johson wouldnt be raving about 47s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
06-17-2007, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
Because a P-47 Could Zoom climb. Thats how the spit was left in the dust. Johnson flew both aircraft, but then again so have you- Right???
In a game

He never flew a spitfire all he flew was the 47. He also says things like no 190 could outroll him etc, while might have been the case its not because the 47 rolls faster. Climbing was just not a strong point of the 47, not even the boosted models outclimbed the spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He TEST flew the the spitfire V and IX. Are you saying the Fw-190 rolls faster than the P-47? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW190 absolutely rolls faster than the P47 at everything but possibly very high speeds, and even then it may even be the FW190 which is better.

At normal combat speeds the FW190 would roll much much faster.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/RollChartClr2.jpg

Apparantly the FW190 in the chart above was rolling poorly and should be well above the CLipped wing Spitfire.

Xiolablu3
06-17-2007, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Are you guys talking about RAF pilot Johnnie Johnson?

He flew SPitfires during WW2 and possibly test flew P47's.

He is the highest Allied scorer IIRC

robert johnson, johnnie johson wouldnt be raving about 47s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well I did wonder http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

na85
06-17-2007, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
Are you saying the Fw-190 rolls faster than the P-47?

The 190 DOES roll faster in most situations.

berg417448
06-17-2007, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Are you guys talking about RAF pilot Johnnie Johnson?

He flew SPitfires during WW2 and possibly test flew P47's.

He is the highest Allied scorer IIRC

Highest allied scorer? Forgetting the Soviets? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HellToupee
06-17-2007, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
He TEST flew the the spitfire V and IX. Are you saying the Fw-190 rolls faster than the P-47?

never read anything about him flying spitfires, and yes the 190 does roll faster.

DKoor
06-17-2007, 09:45 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 Xiolablu3:
Are you guys talking about RAF pilot Johnnie Johnson?

He flew SPitfires during WW2 and possibly test flew P47's.

He is the highest Allied scorer IIRC

Highest allied scorer? Forgetting the Soviets? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not being a smartarse here but yes indeed.

Ivan Kozhedub had highest single score for the.... "red" side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

summary: 330 combat sorties, 120 aerial combats, 62 kills (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/ivan-nikitovich-kozhedub-allied-leading-ace-62-kills-585.html) .... and of course LA-7 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LStarosta
06-17-2007, 10:04 PM
Soviets were the enemy of the enemy more than a true ally in the truest meaning, but whatever. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
06-17-2007, 10:09 PM
Makes sense.

R_Target
06-17-2007, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Not being a smartarse here but yes indeed.

Ivan Kozhedub had highest single score for the.... "red" side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

With ten or twelve others at 40+ right behind him, then Richard Bong with 40. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Korolov1986
06-17-2007, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
So was Boyington just too drunk when he commented about the Buffalo being better than it was given credit for?? Maybe he didn't know his planes as well as modern sim pilots?? Also I don't think the air war in the Pacific was a really high altitude war, not until the last part when the B-29s came into service. It seems like it was more low altitude to mid altitude until near the the end of 44.

I'm sure Boyington would concede the F6F as being a heck of a lot better than the F2A. You also miss my point - in that you can make a plane like the F2A work, and quite well, but you need to do so in a way that forces you to work harder from a tactical perspective.

And by the way, I do believe the F2A was a victim of poor understanding, but there's no way it can compare to the said USN planes which were still in the prototype stages. I doubt you'd rather have a F2A over a F6F. Over a F4F? Maybe.

You're also incorrect about the pacific not being high altitude; during '42 and '43, the Japanese launched a number of raids into New Guinea and through the slot which were in excess of 15,000ft of altitude. The standard tactic at Henderson airfield when an enemy air raid was detected - to my understanding - was to send the P-39s and P-40s up to cover the 10,000ft range, F4Us in the 10 to 20kft range, and P-38s in the 20 to 30kft range.

I can't speak much for the Navy, but the USAAF's 5th Air Force was in desperate need for high altitude fighters. With attacks regularly coming above 20,000ft, it was well above the effective coverage for either the P-39 or the P-40. As I understand it, most of these types were regulated to intercept the bombers while P-38s dealt with the escorts.

Xiolablu3
06-17-2007, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Not being a smartarse here but yes indeed.

Ivan Kozhedub had highest single score for the.... "red" side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

With ten or twelve others at 40+ right behind him, then Richard Bong with 40. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apologies, I forgot about USSR.

Also Johnnie Jonston is not the highest Western Allied scorer (Bong scored 40 vs Japan). Every one of his 38 kills but one (a ME110) was against German single seat fighters. He is the highest scoring surviving Ace on the Western Front. Noone who survived the war scored higher vs the Germans.

He waived half shares and gave the full kills to his younger pilots to boost their confidence.

The highest US scorer against Germany was a tally of 25.

http://www.mishalov.com/Johnson_Johnnie.html

South African ace 'Pat' Pattle in the RAF scored 41, but he was killed mid-1941, who was the highest scorer in the RAF.

Richard Bong was USA's highest scorer with 40, this was in the Pacific vs Japanese.

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
<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 RAZORBACK-47:
From the book "Thunderbolt" Johnson says "Never again did a Fw-190 or a Me-109 outclimb me in the Thunderbolt.The new prop was worth 1,000 horsepower, and then some. Later i had the opportunity to mix it up with a spit 9b, the same model that had flashed past me in a climb. This time the tables were reversed;I was astonished as we both poured the coal to our fighters, and the Thunderbolt just ran away from the spit."


I know ! Why would a plane with half the weight and 1800 hp be a better climber than the Jug ??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I guess the laws of physics dont apply to certain aircraft types.

Even the Tempest, which was a fat ba*tard could outclimb the jug (at its height range) let alone a fighter half the size. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because a P-47 Could Zoom climb. Thats how the spit was left in the dust. Johnson flew both aircraft, but then again so have you- Right???
In a game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry RAZOR but giving the P47 enough altitude to execute a dive to build up speed to carry out a zoom climb is already stacking the odds heavily against the Spitfire.

Its ok though you can carry on believing that the P47 was a great climber, just dont expect anyone else to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:Are you saying the Fw-190 rolls faster than the P-47?

YES!!!!!

Wake up and smell the coffee. Every WW2 Ace thought "my plane was better than their plane". One mans opinion. Thats all.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/RollChartClr2.jpg

Ratsack
06-18-2007, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Soviets were the enemy of the enemy more than a true ally in the truest meaning, but whatever. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Well, somebody had to beat the German army, didn't they?

Ratsack

RAF_OldBuzzard
06-18-2007, 05:47 AM
I'd really like to say that the P-38 was the best, but I think that the F4U edges it out by a bit.

The Zair had just about everything you wanted. Good range, well armed, good protection for pilot, air-cooled engine able to take some punishment and still get the pilot home, able to carry a wide range of bombs/rockets for ground pounding. Plus it could operate from carriers as well as land, which is probably the deciding factor.

The Zair could do every thing and do it well. It may not have been the fastest, or have the best roll rate, or turn rate, but the total package was better than anything else on the American side.

As for the poor visiblity, I think you guys are a bit off base with that. Yes, there was an issue with visibility 'over the nose', but that was in the LANDING CONFIGURATION, not in the air.

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 06:05 AM
I have a hard time accepting that Robt Johnson is a raving lunatic. IMO, it's more likely that we might be overlooking something.

In an attempt to rationalize Robt Johnson's pretty explicit remarks about out-rolling the FW190, I examined the NACA roll rate chart more closely. Those roll rate values were all determined at 10,000 ft altitude.

What it does not say is what the roll rate relationship might have been at, say, 25,000 ft, where the performance relationship between the P47 and the FW190 was considerably different.

Worth considering.

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 06:21 AM
Would altitude have a great effect on roll rate though? Yes the Fw 190 has less HP at high altitude and the air is thinner allowing the P47's larger wing to roll more easily but surely that advantage is shared by all aircraft.

Imo the Fw 190 has sufficiently large airelons and a wide enough range of deflection to roll well at high altitudes as well as low altitues.

Kurfurst__
06-18-2007, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
In an attempt to rationalize Robt Johnson's pretty explicit remarks about out-rolling the FW190, I examined the NACA roll rate chart more closely.

Hmm, what need for a NACA chart for that - if a FW 190 can roll at say 180 degree/second, it doesn't mean whenever it rolls it will roll at 180 degree/second and no less.. it may roll at 10, 20 50, 100 degree/sec depending on how hard the pilot is pushing it.

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 06:37 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 Blutarski2004:
In an attempt to rationalize Robt Johnson's pretty explicit remarks about out-rolling the FW190, I examined the NACA roll rate chart more closely.

Hmm, what need for a NACA chart for that - if a FW 190 can roll at say 180 degree/second, it doesn't mean whenever it rolls it will roll at 180 degree/second and no less.. it may roll at 10, 20 50, 100 degree/sec depending on how hard the pilot is pushing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I don't disagree. But the chart does act as a rough measure of capability.

ImpStarDuece
06-18-2007, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I have a hard time accepting that Robt Johnson is a raving lunatic. IMO, it's more likely that we might be overlooking something.

In an attempt to rationalize Robt Johnson's pretty explicit remarks about out-rolling the FW190, I examined the NACA roll rate chart more closely. Those roll rate values were all determined at 10,000 ft altitude.

What it does not say is what the roll rate relationship might have been at, say, 25,000 ft, where the performance relationship between the P47 and the FW190 was considerably different.

Worth considering.

I don't think RobertJohnson was a lunatic, but, from what I have read in comparison between him and other pilots appreciations of similar situations, I'd say he was inclined to more than a little hyperbole and artistic licence. Closterman is another one I put a similar category. Fantastic pilots, sure. But maybe they stretch their versions of the story a little too far sometimes.

There have been quite a few, widely seperated, articles that question too many of Robert Johnsons statements on reltaive perfomance to take them as Gospel truth (of, if your of a scientific bent, emperical evidence).

Ratsack
06-18-2007, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I have a hard time accepting that Robt Johnson is a raving lunatic. IMO, it's more likely that we might be overlooking something.

In an attempt to rationalize Robt Johnson's pretty explicit remarks about out-rolling the FW190, I examined the NACA roll rate chart more closely. Those roll rate values were all determined at 10,000 ft altitude.

What it does not say is what the roll rate relationship might have been at, say, 25,000 ft, where the performance relationship between the P47 and the FW190 was considerably different.

Worth considering.

I think it's also worth looking at what he said in the context of some of the fights he described. With the 'I was never out rolled by a Fw 190' comment, there is a technique he described whereby he would roll clockwise into a right turn after a bandit. The bandit would then reverse by rolling to port (i.e., anti-clockwise) and pull into a left-hand turn. Johnson described continuing his right-hand roll until he had reversed also, and then taking the snap shot as the bandit crossed his sight. Rinse and repeat.

This is very similar to what Fw 190s did to Spits, and it's not that sophisticated. However, it does show how a good pilot might consider that he'd never been out rolled.

Some of Johnson's claims are a little outlandish if taken literally, but I don't think we're compelled to do so. Context usually helps. (However, his estimate that he had his early-model P-47D-5 at ~ 470 mph sounds like a bit of fond exaggeration. But this one is the exception.)

I don't think he was a luney. I think he just had a turn of phrase that - when written down - lends itself to hyperbole in the hands of axe grinders.

cheers,
Ratsack

Cajun76
06-18-2007, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by RAZORBACK-47:
From the book "Thunderbolt" Johnson says "Never again did a Fw-190 or a Me-109 outclimb me in the Thunderbolt.The new prop was worth 1,000 horsepower, and then some. Later i had the opportunity to mix it up with a spit 9b, the same model that had flashed past me in a climb. This time the tables were reversed;I was astonished as we both poured the coal to our fighters, and the Thunderbolt just ran away from the spit."

I'm as big a fan of the Thunderbolt as anyone, ask around. But I also know it's limits, and so did Johnson, who refered to relative states between a/c.

The original mock fight with the IXB also involved a drag race before the fight went vertical. The last line of that quote says nothing about climbing, although a gradual high speed climb would leave the Spit behind, the Jug can't simply outclimb the Spit at will.

Here's another Johnson quote for you:

Johnson: This is very similar to the German debate. As far as the 109, all of the German pilots loved that plane, but the Fw-190 was harder to shoot down. Just like the controversy over the P-51 and P-47. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The P-47 was faster; it just did not have the climb and range the Mustang did.</span>

Are the Mustang and T-bolt outclimbing the Spit now? Believe me, I'm no fan of the Spittly, but it did outclimb the Jug in a sustained, straight up, butt down contest.

As for the roll, everything is realtive. During combat, not chart comparison, Johnson stated he was not outrolled. Johnson staked his very life on his rolling performance more than once. One of the things that Johnson explained is that instead of following the Fw in a left, right, left scissors (which the Fw excelled at), Johnson would simply keep rolling left and squirt the Focke Wulf as it reversed. This avoided "mushing" the Thunderbolt as he followed his target. ie, he wasn't "outrolled" He stayed with his target, unlike this example where the Spit is unable to stay with his opponent:


Johnson:
The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The jug could out roll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right, around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes.

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Some of Johnson's claims are a little outlandish if taken literally, but I don't think we're compelled to do so. Context usually helps. (However, his estimate that he had his early-model P-47D-5 at ~ 470 mph sounds like a bit of fond exaggeration. But this one is the exception.)


...... Interesting insight into the "out-rolling" issue. Good food for thought. And shows the importance of CONTEXT when assessing such historical observations.

Re 470mph, what if Johnson's D-5 had been retro-fitted with water injection and paddle blade prop? These retro-fits were very common on earlier engines models.