Discussion in 'Recreational Discussion' started by Phil Perry, May 30, 2018.
For a good looking curvy WW2 fighter you can't go past an F4U Corsair.
It's amazing how late in the war, when they had lost in North Africa and were retreating in the east, that Germany finally mobilised the population and introduced extra shifts. Their arrogant reliance on working Slavic prisoners to death eventually doomed the Nazi state.
can't go past the mosquito for an outstanding fighter come fighter bomber
We are getting stuck on the aircraft of only three of the belligerents. What about some of the Italian fighters. Or Russian MIGs. Don't forget the CAC-15 which was a pretty prototype.
Good point, OME. There is that story about the international squadron being offered their choice of the best aircraft the allies had.
The didn't choose Spitfires or Mustangs. They chose the best. The Yak-9D
I didn't think it was about 'belligerents', but aircraft. Yes, some of the Russian aircraft were very functional, but sooooo ugly. I think the first good looking Russioan aircraft was the SU-27. I've not seen an Italian aircraft I've thought was good looking either.
The CAC-15 looked nice , just like a P-51.
If what I've read is correct, the Hellcat had the highest kill ratio in WW2, followed by the F4U.
Maybe we need to define how we determine "best".
The Kiwi's used the Corsair. A quite formidable aircraft by all accounts People flew this stuff with minimal training and to a certain extent had to learn on the job often with a bit of alcohol used to make it more easy on the mind. . More a technique used by the Americans but fairly general in active service.
The TBM Avenger takes the prize for Fugly in my books but it's designed to drop torpedoes.. and always looks underpowered ..Nev
Yup, took 3/4s of all Allied Pacific Theater kills. The Hellcat was also an accurate bomber to boot.
If not for the Hellcat, not the Spitfire, you guys might be drinking Fosters Sake today.
Not sure why you guys are going on looks, these are planes for the purpose of destruction, and only factually how they fulfilled their purpose should matter.
I love the Hellcat look anyway, as mentioned, I'm a fastback man, and they don't get much more fastback than a Hellcat.
You seem to be mistaking musclular brawn for other.
But it's ok, it's 2018 and men admitting to a more feminine sway is now completely acceptable. Mostly.
Yak 3 isn't too ugly.
If you think that's ugly have a look at a Grumman Duck!
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.
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".
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 ?
Didn't know they came with a braking chute...
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.
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
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.
Separate names with a comma.