WWII fighter beauty contest.

[oedo]

I just don´t get it. all of these planes you talk about, are able to fly and all of them are able to destroy. they all look pretty much the same. why do you make such a big deal out of it?

[Cruddy]

Spitfire. Lovely curved wings.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
but with the corsair, why are the most maneuverable planes universally always the hardest to pilot? I mean the Sopwith Camel and Fokker Triplane back in the first world war were also extremely maneuverable but killed plenty of new pilots especially the Camel. is there something about the structure that provides maneuverability that also makes them hard to fly?

You've got it. The Camel was a bit of an exception, in that it wasn't aerodynamic design, but excessive torque, that gave it extreme starboard maneuverability - to fly straight and level with it, you had to have a good deal of left rudder and left aileron input to counteract the engine torque. Let go of that and go into neutral stick and rudder, and you were in a right turn. Actually give input to turn right, and you were in a very sharp turn with a lot of wing stress, since the engine torque was helping you along. If you didn't coordinate the turn (i.e. have proper rudder input for the degree of aileron roll), you went straightaway into an almost certainly unrecoverable spin.

The basic nature of a maneuverable aircraft (high lift to weight ratio, aerodynamically large control surfaces, etc.) means that it's inherently unstable in flight.

The turkey shoot results and the Hellcat's overall kill ratio was due almost exclusively to high speed run and gun tactics.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Fez
Albert:

Yaks 9 produced: 16,769 (All models, source)
P-51s produced: 7,956 (All models, source)
BF-109 produced: 35,000 (Source
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt produced: 15,677 (source)

Well you are right. But the Americans did produce more overall of different types in total. More capacity to do so.

Also I can't believe the Thunderbolt was left off the poll...

My source is The World War II Databook by John Ellis.
BF-109 =30,000 all types
A6M2 Zero = 11,720
Spitfire = 20,350 All types
P-51 = 15,470 All types
P-47 = 15,630 All types
Yak 9D = 16,800
Dewoitine D520 =910

[GePap]

I like the F-190 series the best.
The Zero next, then the spitfire, then the P-47.

I don;t like the bulge of the P-51, and while the P-38 looks cool, I don;t think it is as beautiful a plane.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Kramerman


Because volume of fire was seen as more important than caliber of fire. And at the speeds of dog fighting, they can make some good arguements. For interceptors tho, large calibers are superior, IMHO.

And, if this were a bomber beauty contest.... I've always had a place in my heart for the B-24 Mitchel. It was the first model airplane I built all by myself, and it really is a nice looking craft.

The Mitchel is a B-25. The B-24 was know as the Liberator.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Agathon
Doesn't the Buffalo rank among the worst aircraft ever built?

One of the worst, but not the worst.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i guess another reason why we didnt use cannons was because we never had to combat heavy bombers... machine guns work good enough on fighters...

The P-38 had a 20 mm cannon in the nose with 4 .50s.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
it's amazing how hard it is to find pictures of Japanese fighters...

but while looking, i found this gem...




by the way, why did jap planes have such unfierce names like "Violet Lightning", "Flying Swallow", "Moonlight", "Peregrine Falcon", and "Gale"?


thanks

This picture is a German Fieseler Storch FI 156.

[Al B. Sure!]

Joseph:

yes you are right... it was mostly used by the Roumanian Air Force... really odd looking thing. can't imagine it flying anywhere near any of these other planes in this thread

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
look at this thing...



called the "Magnificent Lightning"

This plane is the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender. Never produce. You can see one at the Smithsonian. Speed 390 at 19,300 ft. Service ceiling was 34,600 ft.

[Master Zen]

In terms of sheer esthetic beauty... I'd go with the Spit, although I like the Mustang's more colorful paint schemes. I'd give both a tie.

Fez:

The Spit fought from 1939-1945 whearas the Mustang entered large numbers only in late 1943. The Spit was also the only allied plane capable of taking on the best German fighters in europe until the introduction of the P-38. Show some respect

MtG:

Dora Nine, hands down the most attractive radial-engined fighter ever,


Also the most-produced plane was the Il-2 Sturmovik but since it wasn't a fighter it was probably the Bf 109 or the Yak series (to bad nether;s production statistics seem to be 100% reliable).

[Giancarlo]

I never was showing disrespect to the Spitfire. Infact it is a respectable fighter. I just like the P-51 more.. because it was a better.. albeit came out later.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Joseph
My source is The World War II Databook by John Ellis.
BF-109 =30,000 all types
A6M2 Zero = 11,720
Spitfire = 20,350 All types
P-51 = 15,470 All types
P-47 = 15,630 All types
Yak 9D = 16,800
Dewoitine D520 =910

Hmm.. some of those numbers are completely different than my source. Either one of our sources is wrong.

[cinch]

What about the good ol' Grumman Goblin?



Valiantly protecting the Maritimes from the Nazis!