Spitfire - The Painful truth

[Peter Anson]

For a good looking curvy WW2 fighter you can't go past an F4U Corsair.

At the Antique Aircraft fly-in at Echuca a couple of years ago I saw a P51 and a Corsair flying in formation. They both looked great but surprisingly the Corsair looked quite portly compared with the Mustang.  For a really purposeful looking aircraft I don't think you can go past the FW190.  Kurt Tank was behind several very good aircraft designs and we were probably a bit lucky that more of them didn't make it into mass production.

 

The TBM Avenger takes the prize for Fugly in my books

If you think that's ugly have a look at a Grumman Duck!

Hmmm.  I think a biplane trainer made a forced landing on top of a speedboat and the designers at Grumman thought "Hey, that could work".

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Yak 3 isn't too ugly.

 

 

[johnm]

why did the yanks bother with a B17 that took say 3 or 4 tons to berlin ............. when a mossie could take 2 tons with a minimum of fuss ?

 

 

[Marty_d]

[ATTACH]38388.IPB[/ATTACH]

Didn't know they came with a braking chute...

 

 

[kgwilson]

[ATTACH]38388.IPB[/ATTACH]

That one was built in 2002 with a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radial engine. The good looking ones were WWII variants built in 1944-45 with an in line Klimov engine.

 

 

[Marty_d]

[APenNameAndThatA]

I'm not sure that the Zero was more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire makes it a better plane. In the Pacific, the American fighters had a huge kill ratio at the end of the war. They swooped down, shot the Zeros, and left. If they had stuck around to dog fight, they would have been shot down. Speed is a great characteristic in a fighter. 

 

 

[M61A1]

I'm not sure that the Zero was more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire makes it a better plane. In the Pacific, the American fighters had a huge kill ratio at the end of the war. They swooped down, shot the Zeros, and left. If they had stuck around to dog fight, they would have been shot down. Speed is a great characteristic in a fighter. 

A big factor in the outcome between Zeros and American fighters was the amount to damage they could tolerate. The Zero was light and manoeuvrable, but it didn't take much damage to destroy it. Most of they American fighters could take quite a bit of damage and keep flying. Many pilots loved the P-47 in particular because it would bring you home even with some terrible damage.

Here are some pics of F4U, P-47 and and Nev's fav, the Avenger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

A big factor in the outcome between Zeros and American fighters was the amount to damage they could tolerate. The Zero was light and manoeuvrable, but it didn't take much damage to destroy it. Most of they American fighters could take quite a bit of damage and keep flying. Many pilots loved the P-47 in particular because it would bring you home even with some terrible damage...[ATTACH]38395.IPB[/ATTACH]

Amazing this Thunderbolt got home without shaking to bits.

Attrition rate had a lot to do with victory. The Allies produced vast numbers more war machines and fighting men than the enemy.

 

At peak production the whole of Japan built a dozen Zeros per day. One American factory alone produced over sixty fighters each day.

 

 Another factor was aviator skill. Japan had some excellent pilots, but lost most of them early in the war. Unlike the Allies, it hadn't set up a thorough training system to replace them.

 

 

[M61A1]

Amazing this Thunderbolt got home without shaking to bits.Attrition rate had a lot to do with victory. The Allies produced vast numbers more war machines and fighting men than the enemy.

 

At peak production the whole of Japan built a dozen Zeros per day. One American factory alone produced over sixty fighters each day.

 

 Another factor was aviator skill. Japan had some excellent pilots, but lost most of them early in the war. Unlike the Allies, it hadn't set up a thorough training system to replace them.

I think that the pilot attrition rate had a lot to do with it. The suicidal Japanese tactics meant that many good pilots were lost, but the American tactics of having survivable aircraft, meant that they could make some mistakes and learn from them and live to fight again. I am lead to believe that The Japanese had plenty of aircraft but were running out of pilots. Hellcats were downing them 19:1 and Corsairs 11:1.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Attrition rate had a lot to do with victory. The Allies produced vast numbers more war machines and fighting men than the enemy.

At peak production the whole of Japan built a dozen Zeros per day. One American factory alone produced over sixty fighters each day.

A number of high up Japanese were educated in America and knew what the Americans could acheive eventually if allowed to. They were mostly ignored by Japanese superiority arrogance.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

[Old Koreelah]

One source claims Japan had over ten thousand aircraft available at war’s end; including mass-produced disposable kamikaze designs. Many were hidden in deep caves. Women and kids were trained to resist to the end. 

 

Their desperate defiant spirit made Churchill's “fight them on the beaches” speech look lame. 

 

It wasn't the A-bombs that convinced them to toss in the towel- it was the rapid advance of the Red Army thru Manchuria.. The knew the Russians had exterminated their own royal family, and trusted the American promise to spare the emperor.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

 and trusted the American promise to spare the emporer

A lot of civilians committed suicide rather than be captured by the Americans for fear of the treatment they were told to expect apparently, there's lots of sad film of it, the cliff jumpers for example. 

 

There is no clear reason the Japanese surrendered, but indeed the Russians jumping in at the same time as the A bombs was certainly a major influence, as was the entire country being gridlocked as the population went in all directions seeking safety. That was in part due to the Americans leaflet bombing them telling them they were going to bomb where they were ahead of time, a very effective technique saving civilian lives and causing immobilisation of the Japanese military at the same time due to roads being heavyly blocked.

 

in a similar fashion, but a bit more sinister, Germans often used Stukas to strafe fleeing refugees to direct them up roads that advancing Allies were using.

 

 

[M61A1]

https://popularmilitary.com/marine-aviator-downed-enemy-plane-propeller/

 

An article about a Marine pilot taking out a Japanese "Nick" and returning safely...

 

 

[winsor68]

 

...but it was bloody ugly!

Why should a killing machine look pretty?   Such a crazy concept we seem to have picked up.

 

 

[winsor68]

If you want to hear a really interesting story about Heavy American Metal VS Japanese Zero lightweights...check out GO FLYING AUSTRALIA podcast- 040 --The rookie squadron who fought for Australia--75 squadron RAAF.    

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

A number of high up Japanese were educated in America and knew what the Americans could acheive eventually if allowed to. They were mostly ignored by Japanese superiority arrogance.

There is, of course, an alternative view of the Pacific War.

Lots of evidence points to a grand strategy by Churchill and Roosevelt to get a reluctant US into the war. They knew war with Japan was inevitable.

 

They must have known how the Empire of the Sun would react to the trade embargoes which were starving Japanese industry of the oil and minerals it needed.

 

This forced Japan into a war she knew she couldn't win.

 

The plan was to damage the US fleet and then, from a position of strength, negotiate a peace deal that restored Japan's access to raw materials.

 

If those two aircraft carriers had still been in Pearl Harbour, if Japan's Washington embassy had decoded and passed on the final ultimatum in time...

 

 

[facthunter]

 Oil and rubber were the main problem. SE Asian Co prosperity treaty was  the name for the plan. They didn't win many friends on the way though. Nev

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Why should a killing machine look pretty?   Such a crazy concept we seem to have picked up.

Ugly Aircraft.

 

A few years ago, I was flying across Salisbury Plain, which is used at pre-announced times for Live Fire military exercises.

 

Having already checked the route Notams, I had nothing to fear that day ( ! )  I was flying a Blade 582 trike belonging to a friend who hadn't got his licence yet, only 3 hrs experience thus far.   Approximately half way across the Military range, I could not help but notice that an Apache helicopter had crept up behind and was flying in formation, slightly aft to my right,   

 

The worrying bit was that when the crew looked at me, the guns turned towards us as well . . .I wasn't aware of this interesting feature at that time, and for a few moments my rectal orifice was modulating slightly !    That is one extremely Fugly Machine,. . .surely only it's Mother could love it.

 

 

[rmorton]

It is amazing that the top trumps approach to aircraft seems to be the one people choose. The fact remains that the pilots loved the Spitfire and all it stood for. It was and always will be one the most iconic aircraft ever. It has inspired many a pilot and many more engineers in aviation. The British seem to excel at slagging off what they do and belittling the achievements of their forefathers, which for me explains why the country has turned into such a piss pot. The Germans lost because they bit off more than they could chew, and allies won because they got most things right a second time. It is a combination of human effort behind the right machines and for the Spitfire was definitely the right machine.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

 It was and always will be one the most iconic aircraft ever.

 

 

I guess that depends on if you watched Saturday Matinees on TV as a kid with lots of P51 Mustangs, or sat in Cinimas and got Pathe news shorts. Mustangs, with teeth of course, are the iconic WW2 planes to me, while not my favorite.

 

 

Interesting reading ..

 

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero

 

Spitfires < Zero < Hellcat.

 

Hellcat for the win!

 

Then I noticed this, guess what, the guy's not British or American, lol!...

 

Filip Vidinovski, Science Editor at Ars Lamina Publishing (2015-present)

 

Answered Sep 19 2017 · Author has 556 answers and 565.2k answer views

 

Originally Answered: What was the best fighter plane in World War 2?

 

There are several criteria by which one can judge which one was "the best".

 

Plain score: Bf109. Probably THE WWII fighter. This iconic aircraft shot down more enemy aircraft than any other. All German aces with 100+ kills flew one. Although a pre-war design, remained relevant throughout the whole war. Late versions, such as "Kurfurst", with their fantastic power-to-weight ratio, could easily out-climb (which typically translates to "kill") any opponent.

 

Dogfighting: A6M Zero. Getting into a turning fight with a "Zero" meant almost certain death. Pilots flying much more powerful, faster and advanced fighters were forced into developing special tactics to defeat them.

 

Best performace at low altitudes: The Tempest. Untouchable at tree-top level, this super-fast fighter, coupled with right tactics, attacked with more-or-less impunity.

 

Best performance at low and medium altitudes: a draw between N1K and La-7. Both claimed by many to be the best fighter of the war, both with very good reasons.

 

Best performance at high altitudes: a draw between P-47 and Ta-152. Exploiting massively powerful 2000+ hp state-of-the-art engines, both were nimble and "at home" flying at altitudes at which most other fighters would struggle to merely maintain level flight. Both were among the fastest fighters in the war.

 

General usefulness: P-38 Lightning. Manufactured and used in all theaters throughout the whole war. That's how good it was. Perhaps the most versatile fighter of them all. There was no role in which you couldn’t use the Lighting. Equally "at home" dog fighting single engine nimble fighters in broad daylight and energy-fighting the best opponents in the stratosphere. Lightning -fast at all altitudes, with long range, excellent climb rate (best among Western fighters) and capable of lifting the same bomb load as a typical heavy, four engine bomber. Always in demand, they were even assembled outdoors when orders surpassed factory capacities and weather permitted.

 

The "big picture", actual impact on the course of war: P-51. No contest here. This fighter defeated the mighty Luftwaffe. Having incredibly long range coupled with excellent flying characteristics (especially when flying fast), fancy modern efficient wings and outstanding visibility from the cockpit, it presented an insoluble problem for the defenders of the Third Reich. The "game over" fighter. That's why many rightly claim the Mustang was the best WWII fighter.

 

But, if I had to reluctantly and mindlessly choose ONE, based on no particularly defined criteria, it will probably be the Dora, FW190D. It had a deadly combination of speed, roll-rate, ruggedness and powerful weaponry. Between 10,000 and 20,000 feet it was better than almost anything else in the skies. It was always a dead-serious opponent. If engaged by one between 3 and 6 kilometers of altitude, the best (and, most of the times, only) chance for survival is an immediate attempt to run away.

 

Honorable mention goes to MiG-3. Let down by less-than-perfect engine. If fitted with the planned AM38 engine, it would easily compete and win against the very best fighters of the war. Unfortunately, Stalin said "no" and ordered all of the precious AM38 engines to be used in Il-2 ground attack aircraft, itself produced in vast numbers.

 

And his first reply was from a Brit, and guess what... bahaha!

 

.... I might be biased (being a Brit and an ardent fan of the plane) but, for my money, the best all-round fighter plane of WW II was the Vickers Supermarine Spitfire.

 

What a surprise ...

 

 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

You missed the most versatile of the lot; the Wooden Wonder.

 

 

[facthunter]

Wood is hardly an advantage. It was used under conditions where Aluminium was scarce.  Problems in the tropics and a few fell apart. Remarkable achievement under the circumstances. German engines at their best had superior supercharging  and carburetion than the Merlin. This gives better performance at altitude.. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

The worrying bit was that when the crew looked at me, the guns turned towards us as well . . .I wasn't aware of this interesting feature at that time

It's a feature of the average attack heli....the have a switch which slaves the gun and other things like laser designation, IR and thermal imaging to the gunner.battle captains helmet.

It's quite annoying on the ground when some clusterf*ck has accidentally stomped on the foot switch and has the gun waving about while he's doing his pre-start cockpit checks while you're up the front manning the fire ext.

 

I guess that depends on if you watched Saturday Matinees on TV as a kid with lots of P51 Mustangs, or sat in Cinimas and got Pathe news shorts. Mustangs, with teeth of course, are the iconic WW2 planes to me, while not my favorite.

My love for the F4U came from watching 'BaaBaa Blacksheep" or 'Black Sheep Squadron " as it was called in the US in my primary school years.  I have since downloaded the series and enjoy watching it for the corsair and genuine gun camera footage. The over acting is hilarious now. I don't know how Robert Conrad, who played "Pappy" Boyington, doesn't talk in a squeaky voice with a flight suit that tight. It must have near cut him half everytime he threw a leg over the cockpit sill. I laugh at the cockpit scenes where they are in a dive and both the Alt and VSI are stationary, or turning with a stationary compass and AH.