An ULTIMATE competition

[Corsarius]

Here we go, another 'what's the best' question, but with a twist. Here's what I want from everyone:

I want YOUR PERSONAL TOP 10 WWII aircraft. They can be any aircraft, or mix of aircraft. They can be all fighters, bombers, whatever, or a mix. Just your absolute favourite top ten.

Now here's the clincher. I don't just want ten aircraft stacked in a row, nooo, preciousss.. We wants them itemised as to WHY YOU PERSONALLY feel that these aircraft are the best ten WWII aircraft you can think of.

Up to the task everyone? Your time starts..... now!

[simon]

Hmmm, difficult to tie it down to ten only, so here's my first go, subject to review and in no particular order...

North American P-51D Mustang, picked for the implications being able to escort bombers anywhere in western europe had to the US Daylight bombing offensive.

Supermarine Spitfire, in it's various marks available from the before until after the war, and one of the best fighters of its era.

de Havilland Mosquito, do I really have to give a reason...? Oh OK, a heavy fighter with a medium bomber's bombload and the speed to outrun most of the opposition.

Ilyushin Il-2M Stormovik, but only if I could have it in those famous huge numbers, hard hitting power and a mean reputation.

Avro Lancaster, available in numbers from when it was needed and able to carry a remarkable bombload over large distances.

Boeing B-29 Superfortress, most advanced bomber of the war, I'd definitely want it on my side...

Douglas SBD Dauntless, in my opinion one of the most influential aircraft of the war.

Consolidated TBD Sea Wolf, best carrier torpedo bomber of the war, shame it was delayed too much to join the Avenger, but if I had Aircraft Carriers, I'd want these on board.

Grumman Hellcat, Well with those carriers full of Dauntless and Sea Wolves I need something to look after them so what better than the Hellcat? Well maybe the Corsair, but at least the Hellcat has a bit of a head start...

Douglas C-47 Dakota, need something to cart all the supplies and crew around in, and what better than the ubiquitos DC3?

Well that's my submission, feel free to pick holes. You'll notice that there are no Axis types there, this is nothing deliberate, I just picked aircraft for roles as they sprung to mind. What I've tried to do is pick a sort of "Fantasy Football" type airforce rather than just my top 10, so about the only thing I think that's missing is a Medium Bomber and a Seaplane however you can't have everything!

[Corsarius]

Well, I guess I was going for the 'fantasy football', but still, if you like 10 fighters just put 10 fighters!

Having said that, here is my pick 'n' mix air force of 10 different aircraft. This should be noted that it is pending availability of aircraft from the manufacturer in desired numbers.

These aircraft, as Simon said, are in no particular order and pending review (and delivery in requisite numbers!)

1) Messerschmitt 323. I would take this trasport over any other. Like all transports it suffers from a lack of firepower and armour (the C-47 and Ju-52 had similar problems). But given sufficient numbers, I'll have this one, please. R0/RO abilities and huge payload, as well as outstanding short and rough field performance. The C-130 of WWII!

2) CA-11 Woomera. This aircraft for my 'light/medium bomber' as well as 'torpedo bomber'. Considered by many to be the finest torpedo bomber of the war, in any aircraft, and any theatre. It's a pity that production was curtailed. With it's outstanding performance and innovative features (like remote turrets) I will buy it in bulk to equip my squadrons.

3) Mosquito. One word says it all. I shall buy this in all variants. Hopefully I will get a discount for large orders, because is there anything that this aircraft does NOT excel at?

4) Avro Lancaster. Looking at all WWII bombers (and the 'best bomber' thread again) I will purchase this baby for conventional bombing. Equipped with Tallboys and Grand Slams, this will be my precision devastation machine.

5) Boeng Superfortress. I'll go without the German trans-atlantic bombers due to technology problems that were never really solved. The B-29 is a nice streamlined beast that can do some serious damage. The only other bomber than the He-177 that is nuclear-capable in this era.

6) Me-163 Komet. Really. How can I NOT put my signature aircraft in here? Best of the best for interceptor fighter. In sufficient numbers and with the 163C variant (ie: the safer one) this would be a potent defence against any attacker, from low level intruder to high level bomber. One pass, no chance.

7) HS-129. I seem to have a lot of German types here. I assure readers this isn't due to a fascination with the mystique of the third reich. I find this aircraft superior to the IL-2, and that's that. Bathtub armour protection, a massively heavy gun, antitank rockets in those vertical launcher things that were the terror of the red army, twin engine survivability.

8) Supermarine Spitfire/Seafire. Like the Mosquito, do I have to do or say anything? The only fighter of WWII that was being built/in service before, during, and after the war. Bulk orders of both, please!

9) FA-223. A what, a WHAT? I hear the punters cry. A FA-223. Respect it. The best helicopter of WWII, capable of serious multirole abilities (it was used for most of the things modern military helicopters were used for, but only in experimental roles at the time). This baby would transform my armies to be truly mobile, and be a terror for tanks and submarines alike.

10) CA-whatever Wirraway. Someone has to train all those pilots, and something has to be a jack-of-all trades. What else than the wirraway? A variant of the T-6 Harvard, it served as bomber, recon, dive bomber, night fighter, interceptor, and a zillion other things. Not bad for the humble trainer, and certainly one I want on my team!

[simon]

That the Spitfire was the only fighter to be built before during and after the war is slightly debatable since the Messerschmitt Bf109 in various guises was built before the war and carried on being built into the 1950s from Spanish factories. Yes different factory, different country and different engine but the Buchons probably had more in common with the Bf109Es of 1939 than the Spitfire F.24s had with the MkIs of the same period.

How was the B-29 the only nuclear capable bomber apart from the He177? I'm pretty sure the Lanc could carry a similar payload to an appropriate altitude, although not admittedly for as far, although I stand by to be corrected on this...

Aside from that, and the fact that you'll have to wait till 1945 for your Wirraway ;) a pretty good list although I still question your sanity over chosing the Komet...

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by simonbut the Buchons probably had more in common with the Bf109Es of 1939 than the Spitfire F.24s had with the MkIs of the same period.

I have to say I always found it amusing (in a sense) that the 'enemy' aircraft found lasting happiness with the merlin engine of the allies.

quote:How was the B-29 the only nuclear capable bomber apart from the He177? I'm pretty sure the Lanc could carry a similar payload to an appropriate altitude, although not admittedly for as far, although I stand by to be corrected on this...

To my knowledge, only two aircraft types were created/modified to carry the nuclear bomb. The B-29 and the He-177 (though why not the -277 I will never understand. It was, after all, at Hitler's behest). I'm sure that your and my lancs would do just fine. Now if only we can get that whole pesky MAUDE program going...

quote:Aside from that, and the fact that you'll have to wait till 1945 for your Wirraway ;) a pretty good list although I still question your sanity over chosing the Komet...


Hey, no-one else has ordered them yet. I have first dibs! And I flat-out LIKE the Komet, so much potential! Remember that it was the British that took most of the Walther rocket stuff post WWII, and were it not for that idiotic DWP stipulation that the manned fighter was obselete.. There was a British rocket interceptor that was really a follow-on, powered by a rocket AND a nene engine, I think it was built by Saro. I understand that if the DWP had not gone through, it would have been the aircraft of choice for the RAF. Instead, it went the way of the TSR-2, instead of the way of the Lightning and the Buccaneer. I'll get it's designation and dig it all up for you.

Got it. Saunders-roe SR.53. An interesting bird indeed.

[Romantic Technofreak]

For me, I think this means to create an air force of my own. Let´s go:

[u]1. Easy Fighter: </u>The Mustang. Thread already discussed, outstanding overall performance.

[u]2. Heavy Fighter: </u>The Dornier Do 335. Unique and convincing concept, although the cooling problems of the rear engine were never really solved, the aircraft was never produced in numbers, never really entered service and never really saw combat. The heavy fighter concept was at all not very successfull during WWII, and if you have a Mustang, it is a little questionable what for you need a heavy fighter, as Kurt Tank stated that his Ta 152 had every good trait of the Do 335 by using only one engine.

[u]3. Light Bomber/Ground Attacker: </u>The unique and outstandingly successfull concept of the Ilyushin Il-2 has to be honoured. Because late war models tend to be superior to earlier ones and I should try to get a smooth line in my argumentation, I choose the Il-10.

[u]4. Fast bomber: </u>The De Havilland Mosquito, which also (probably, I am going to produce another thread) would be the choose of a nightfighter class. The Mitsubishi Ki-46 could have been the better airplane in that class but unfortunately was never used as a bomber.

[u]5. Medium bomber: </u>The Tupolev Tu-2. Arguments see the corresponding thread, please add your own ones there!

[u]6. Heavy bomber: </u>The Boeing B-29 has no serious competitor here.

[u]7. Light Seaplane: </u>The Aichi E16A Zuiun has the highest speed of any competitor in this class and surely showas equal performances in other categories.

[u]8. Medium Seaplane: </u>A hard choose to be done in this class because it was not reimplaced during the war. As anybody would choose the Consolidated PBY Catalina, it would like to set a different accent, give some credit to the here widely neglected Italian trimotori and choose the CANT Z. 506!

[u]9. Heavy seaplane: </u>The Kawanishi H8K was the only four engined seaplane showing the same speed like a land-based heavy bomber and had a well-sorted defensive armament. The aerodynamics were not even optimized, a smaller front profile and retractable support floats could have made the plane even faster. Equipped with good radar and guided missiles, the Pacific might have looked a little different as it did!

[u]10. Transport: </u>The Douglas DC-3 Dakota is unbeatable as medium transport airplane. If anybody does not agree, arguments are welcome.

You see there are some classes unmanned, like a linker or a heavy transport airplane. And especially in the "struggle section" I would like to have more candidates in my hands, like A-20 and A-26, Pe-2, Spitfire, Thunderbolt, FW 190D and... now I have to stop!

[simon]

A fine list. No carrier planes of any kind though, but I guess you could have always stuck an arrestor hook on your Mustangs... :D

I think the heavy fighter mainly found it's niche as a long range patrol fighter over the Atlantic, as an attack aircraft, a bomber destroyer, perhaps though it was best known under the cover of darkness with Radar. Just an observation...

I'd say the Sunderland would be a good competitor against the H8K, but the latter was still one of the truly excellent seaplanes of the war.

I was going to say it on your other post but I'll say it here anyway. The Tu-2 was definitely one of the really great planes, but due to the relocation of factories and the decision to concentrate on the Pe-2 it's mass production was delayed until largely after the war and it didn't see large scale deployment untill around 1944 according to most of my books. So whilst both the Tu-2 and Superfortress are perhaps the best of the wartime examples, personally I picked the Lancaster for the heavy bomber alongside the superfortress and in your other thread the A-20 since my Lancasters and A-20s would be bombing your factories years before your Superfortresses and Tu-2s reached their units. That's just my thinking though... ;)

I always understood that the Curtiss C-46 Commando was at least as good as the DC-3, however I will have to check my sources.

[simon]

Oh yeah, neither the B-29 nor the He177 were created to carry atomic bombs because the specifications for both were layed down when Atomic bombs were pure science fiction...

[andyo2000]

OK, here goes

Obviously, the P-51. 6 50 caliber guns on the later versions just tears up the competition. I'd want these as a main escort and supporting interceptor force.

Me-262 - Main intercepting force. I'd need a good supply of jet fuel though and good mechanics to alleviate the problems Nazi Germany faced with it.

B-25 as a bomber just because its the B-25. It could carry a lot of bomb tonnage for its manuverability, speed, and general stats. Was almost as heavily defended as the B-24.

My heavy bomber would have to be the 6 engined Messerchmitt. I don't remember the number, but I remember seeing a picture of a 6 engine Messerschmitt heavy bomber in Galland's "The First and the Last". I'm sure it had a very high bomb capacity and range.

As a carrier plane, I'd want a good force of Corsairs and Buffalos. Both were good as escorts for the torpedo bombers and fair against the Japanese fighters.

I'd want the Dauntless Divers as my torpedo bombers. They did extremely well, and if i recall correctly, the Dauntlesses were the ones that won Midway.

My force of Catalinas would be my night recon and seaplane department. Well, night recon near the coast, anyway. I'd have the aforementioned 262s running inland night recon.

My main ground attackers would be Ilyushin Il-2s, otherwise known as the Black Death to German tanks. With so much armor, it took a lot of patience to shoot down on of these bad boys, while they in turn could immobilize a Panzer detachment with only 20 or so planes.

Finally, my training aircraft would probably be the old PT-15s. Reliable, they tought new pilots the essentials to get pilots off the ground fairly quickly.

[simon]

Dauntless' were dive-bombers, they were indeed the ones that won Midway, they were not however Torpedo bombers. Their Torpedo Bomber equivilent at Midway was the Devastator which was slaughtered in that battle, indeed it was the sacrifice of the Devastator crews that enabled the Dauntless Dive bombers to attack almost completely without interception and with total surprise sinking the Akagi, Kaga and Soryu.

Buffalos as far as I know never ran a combat escort mission from a Carrier, the early carrier fighting was carried out by Wildcats, an aircraft I think gets much overlooked and one with an impressive record, even against the supposedly superior A6M2 Zero, Zeke, Hap, whatever... In fact I may even substitute the Wildcat for the Hellcat on my list, afterall with a Wildcat I can always ask the manufacturers to develop a more advanced model... ;)

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Oh yeah, neither the B-29 nor the He177 were created to carry atomic bombs because the specifications for both were layed down when Atomic bombs were pure science fiction...

I have this horrible habit of not making myself clear. I meant that they were the only two types Modified to carry 'the bomb'. I'm sure that a Lanc could handle it, or in a real jiffy even a Pe-8 might (maybe) be able to do it.

And Andy? What posesses you to order Buffalos for your navy? Are you just slightly mad, or entirely insane? With my Seafires, Romantic's Navalised mustangs (unless he's using the Pfeil as a long-range fighter.. could be..), and Simon's Hellcats or even Wildcats your boys are going to feel VERY silly, but not for long as shortly after they will likely feel very dead. Haven't we thrashed on the Buffalo enough already?

And as for the Messerschmitt Me-264, I had it on my list, and removed it. Messerschmitt had some problems with that bomber that made the He-117 look like a tonka-truck in comparison.

If you'll forgive me for posting from another site, I believe the majority of this info to be genuine regarding that aircraft. Impressive, if they could ever get it to work! http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html

Otherwise, great lists everyone! Keep them coming! I want more!

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hello Simon,

No carrier planes of any kind though, but I guess you could have always stuck an arrestor hook on your Mustangs...

I know I choosed no carrier planes, because with just 10 classes of airplanes something has to be passed by. We should make competitions about the "best carrier based fighter", "best carrier based dive bomber" and "best carrier based torpedo bomber", and add something more I mention below!

I think the heavy fighter mainly found it's niche as a long range patrol fighter over the Atlantic, as an attack aircraft, a bomber destroyer, perhaps though it was best known under the cover of darkness with Radar. Just an observation...

Your suggestion is thankfully recognized. I shall tell that to my Minister of Finance when he asks me why to spend so much money for a heavy fighter!:D

I'd say the Sunderland would be a good competitor against the H8K, but the latter was still one of the truly excellent seaplanes of the war.

Come on! They are both four-engined seaplanes, but, see again below, divided in drafting by some years in the 30s. I would only accept the Sunderland as competitor of the H8K if to the end of the war some "genetic" influence of the Mosquito had shown up ;). But what happened? The Sunderland was not crossed with the Mosquito, but obviously with some coastal cliffs near a seaplane harbour, and the result was the Shetland!:D

since my Lancasters and A-20s would be bombing your factories years before your Superfortresses and Tu-2s reached their units. That's just my thinking though...

The problem is, that is what I mention above, if you compare airplanes of different phases of the war you get an "apple and pear"-competition, as we in Germany use to say (how does this proverb sound in English?) If we want to really do it good, we would have to say "Best airplane of (well-defined class) operational (say) Sep. 1st, 1943). This would be a realistic base of discussion, but make the matter really confusing. Given a carrier airplane discussion, combined with the addition "early" or "late" you get at least 6 threads![:0]

I always understood that the Curtiss C-46 Commando was at least as good as the DC-3, however I will have to check my sources.

I think again, comparing those is an "apple and pear"-comparison. I had to make at least one choose for transport, so the glory did it. It is even not easy to consider the C-46 as "medium" or "heavy" (Sighs expecting another weight class discussion...!).;)

[CAPILATUS]

Hi, guys!
Actually I would fantacy if I had a small museum. And I do think it would be quite popular (at least in Russia!) if those list of the planes were presented there.

1. Yak-3

2. La-7

3. Aircobra (WWII Russian pilots really did love it, no wonder lot of Russians consider Aircobra to be a Russian aircraft, ha-ha! As much it's well known there!)

4. Mustang P-51

5. Bf-109 (any)

6. the Spitfire

7. I'm surprised no one picked Ju-87 Stuka, sure here it is!

8. Tu-2

9. Catalina (U-uuuu! I would really like to buy one!)

10. B-17


Surprised? No IL-2M in? I would stand the plane in front of the entrance!

And at the end my thoughts absolutely go along with yours, dear Corsarius!
I would really open just a museum of famous WWII fighters!!!

I would add to the top there instead of last four
Corsair, Me-262, Zero and P-38!

[GregP]

Very tough to pick only 10 aircraft for a "best of" list!

I see a lot of people picking multiple fighters ... but why?

OK, a list ...

1) Ground attack: Ilyushin IL-2. Tough to shoot down. Just keeps coming back for more.
2) Fighter,longer range missions over land, temperate weather: North American P-51. Best range, almost best fighter.
3) Fighter, shorter range missions, temperate weather: Supermarine Spitfire. Best defensive fighter of WWII.
3) Fighter, extreme winter weather: Lavochkin La-7. Operated in climates that grounded German and other Western planes.
4) Heavy bomber: Boeing B-29. No competition, the Lancaster notwithstanding.
5) Medium bomber: Medium Bomber: Martin B-26. Best combat record of any medium bomber in USAAF service. Tu-2 or Pe-2 is a close second. Maybe first. Hard to choose here. The Ju-88 looks good here, too.
6) Recon: Mitsubishi Ki-46. Best recce plane of the war.
7) Maritime Patrol flying boat: Kawanishi H8K. Definitely the best!
8)Transport: C-47. Did everything and more!
9) Dive Bomber: Junkers Ju-87 Stuka. Definitely a good one.
10) Spotter / Liaison: Fieseler Storch. Shortest takeoff and landing, best aerodynamics for short-field operation ever. A new turboprop version would STILL be good.

If I had more choices:

11) Torpedo Bomber: Aichi B7A Ryusei. Very fast, very effective, and well armed. We're lucky they didn't come along until Japan's Carriers were already sunk.
12) Most technologocally advanced: Messerschmitt Me 262. A wonder plane, but not much value to the war. Still, it affected fighters that followed WWII for over a decade.

[Romantic Technofreak]

Of couse you can choose here any airplane you want, but being a German I really get a little upset if you choose the Stuka, because this appeals to my inferiority complex belonging to the loosers[B)]:(. The Stuka did not serve less than any other light bomber in WWII, but that is not the point. The only single-engined bombers that were successfull are Il-2/10 and the American carrier-based ones (except the ones that were retired after Midway).
Already over France the Stuka showed that its concept was not sufficient any more. Not being able or even willing to replace it was one brick in the wall of the German defeat. And the Stuka was no German invention. It was developed from two Curtiss Hawks Ernst Udet bought in the USA. The armoured plane, in contrary, was a German development, derived from the Junkes J4 in WWI, where it served well. When the German Luftwaffe was built up, there was no plan to employ another armoured plane, and this while everyone knew the coming war would be a tank war!
But this does not mean that I urge you to become a bad museum curator. The Stuka is still a famous aiplane, and I understand if the audience requests for its exhibition;)!

[Lightning]

Hi Everyone:
I guess I'm the new guy on the block. I,m just trying my "wings" this time around. I definitely have my list of 10 airplanes from WW2,but I want to send this self introduction to make sure I'm doing things correctly.
I've been reading your submissions for about six weeks now,and I'm very impressed with the level of expertise displayed by all of you. I guess it's about time I jumped in. I hope I can make a worthwhile contribution from time to time.

[Corsarius]

Hey Lightning. Welcome aboard! It's good to see someone new here. New blood, new thoughts, new ideas. Feel free to spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard. Also, feel free to agree or disagree with anything anyone says. Everyone else does, so don't be shy. If you have an opinion, share it! People might rip you apart, but then again, people might just find it innovative. This is one of the few forums I have found where occasionally things actually get resolved. (worst bomber, for example). Then again, things sometimes don't (Best fighter, still going...... ). But now you're here. Give me your top ten and build your own little virtual air force or museum.

[Lightning]

Thanks for the welcome,Corsarius. Well,here goes:

Fighter: P-38 Lightning (Surprise!)

Bomber: B-17 'Fortress

Transport: C-47 Skytrain (Dakota)

Carrier Fighter: F4U Corsair

Light Bomber: Mosquito

Attack A/C: A-26 Invader

Night Fighter: P-61 Black Widow

Photo/Recon: F4/F5 Lightning (Surprise again!)

Medium Bomber: B-26 Marauder (Built in Baltimore, 10 miles from
where I live)

Dive Bomber: JU-87 Stuka (Sorry, Romantic T.F.)
SBD Dauntless (Can't make up my mind)


Well,that's my 10 (Count the last two as 1/2 each). I know there will be disaggreements, but that's what makes a dogfight.

Best regards all.

[simon]

Goos choices, although the He219 is distinctly superior to the P-61, also would argue that the PR spits did better than the F-5s but that's a matter of perspective...

Welcome on board anyhow...

[simon]

Oh yeah as my medium bomber I'd definitely choose the Martine Baltimore MkIV..... although apparently going by RTF's classifications it's a light... [8D]

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by simon

although apparently going by RTF's classifications it's a light.


*Bangs....head....on....keyboard....*

[Romantic Technofreak]

:):D[8D];)[:o)][:p][:X][^]!

[GregP]

Hey Technofreak,

I just had to repond to your Ju-87 comment.

Personally, I have always considered the Ju-87 to be the best-looking dive bomber ever built. I can't really say why, I just like it. I would very much like to have seen a retractible-gear version, but that's another story.

About the "loser" part ... The Nazis were the losers, not the German people.

In the considered opinions of most people, the Germans produced some of the best aircraft of WWII. The only real glaring gap in German aircraft was the lack of a strategic bomber. You also produced some of the best other weapons including, but not limited to, the MG42, STG44, Tiger and Panzer tanks, V1, V2, and many more examples.

I have always also liked the Bf109F, the Fw 190 in any variant, and a lot of OTHER German hardware, so don't get too caught up in the winners and losers debate.

Personally, I like Germans and Germany, but not the WWII Nazis. Still, I know about ten people over here in the U.S.A. who either flew, fought, or sailed for Germany in WWII. Their stories as told to me are very interesting, and probably food for another topic alone.

So, I STILL LIKE the Ju-87! Take that! It simply looks better than the Douglas SBD Dauntless to me ... I can't say why.

[Romantic Technofreak]

It´s nothing serious, Greg. I am only getting a little schizophrenia attack if somebody from the "winner" country chooses an - in my eyes- looser aircraft from a looser country;).
The Stuka is an impressive bird, I have to admit that. With the gull wing and the unretractable landing gear it looks like an attacking sparrowhawk. But especially that unretractable landing gear made it uncompetitive for a first-line combat plane that it was. And the bond attack style turned out to be not much more than suicide when the AA firepower increased with the duration of the war.

[BigGorilla]

Here's my 10 choices.
(1) Corsair - what can I say, it's always been my favorite fighter. I can remember argueing all the time with my cousin (a P-51 fan) when we were kids.
(2) Mosquito - this plane was just amazing, a good heavy fighter and a great light bomber rolled into one.
(3) Hs 129 - the A-10 of it's era. Big gun and a solid bathtub for protection.
(4) C-47 - have to get my spare parts around somehow.
(5) Emily - isn't something like 3/4 of the world covered with water.
(6) B-17 - didn't have the range/bombload of the Lancaster or Liberator but I think it could take more punishment. Besides I took a ride in one a couple years ago (tax-deductible even).
(7) B-32 Dominator - since everyone else is picking B-29s
(8) Lysander - great short field for sneaking in my spies at night
(9) Aichi Val - need somethiong for my Corsairs to fly alongside.
(10) Curtiss XP-55 Ascender - Just had to pick the only US plane I know of that snuck it's name past the censors.

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hi Gorilla, what would you say to an Aichi B7A1 Ryusei to accompany your Corsair for a "gull wing alliance"? ;)

[Lightning]

"Inverted Gull"

[BigGorilla]

Okay, I'll trade Val for Grace. More Power is always good.

[Lightning]

Hi Simon:

Regarding your preference of He 219 over P-61: What a fine night fighter the 219 was! I commend you for your choice. I can't find fault with it.

The two were comparable in speed, range, and ceiling. (These are hard to nail down because of the great number of models, variants, and subvariants involved. Both had very heavy armament In general, both were in the same weight class (except for later models of the P-61 which grossed-out at 40,000 lbs. and needed three miles to take off.)

My main reason for favoring the P-61 is that it was designed from the ground-up as a pure night fighter. Its radar/electronics were state-of-the-art, and superior to those of the He 219. Since this is probably the single-most important attribute of a night/all-weather fighter, I stand by my choice.

[Romantic Technofreak]

Yes, power, grace and style, that´s why we are here...(regards to Richard Cory...). And if the wing is the thing, in this case the inverted gull wing, the style council recommends the Yermolayev Yer-2 medium bomber to form a trio!

http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?INT-014

[Lightning]

Hello again, Simon:

Getting back to your comments:

There are several reasons why I think that the F-4/F-5 Photo-Lightning was superior to the Recon-Spitfire (or the F-6 Mustang, for that matter):
* The large gun bay was able to house an impressive array of cameras of various focal lengths and formats.
* The cameras were out in front of the engines. this allowed exposures to be made ahead, obliquely, and abeam of the aircraft.
*The F-4/F-5 had a much longer range than the Spitfire. I,m not sure the F-6. In fighter configuration,the Mustang had longer range than the P-38.Photo-recon aircraft were stripped down, and that may have reversed things.
*The Lightning was more rugged than the Spitfire or the Mustang. This, plus two-engine reliability, meant that valuable photos had a better chance of coming back in the event of ground fire hits or interception.
*The only disadvantage for the Photo-Lightning: They were unarmed whereas the Recon Spitfire and the F-6 retained their armament.

All-in-all,if I had to have photos of an important target, the Photo-Lightning would be my choice.

Fighters win battles; photo-recon airplanes win wars!

[Corsarius]

The photo-spit was 'cottonised' (flown by 'cotton's crooks') to increase speed and reduce nearly all drag. It's pure speed alone allowed it to return home unmolested.

Remember, it was a cottonised spitfire that was dived to mach .92 at the end of the war, the highest figure ever recorded by a propellor driven aircraft.

Actually, Sidney Cotton was pretty much a genius who had a love/hate relationship with the military all his life. It was he who invented the famous 'sidcot' flying suit, and he was the very last civilian aircraft out of Europe come the break of war. He also flew highly unorthodox recon missions over patrolled German airspace in a modified twin passenger aircraft (a beech, I think) prior to the war with concealed cameras, once with a German air minister aboard while he was taking (illegal) snaps of their airfields and military buildup at the same time!

oh, and he was an Australian. His life story is pretty fascinating if you want to look it up.

http://www.aceflyer.com/cotton/

Check it out. My hero. A veritable real life 'James Bond' crossed with 'Macgyver'. Right up there with Barnes Wallis.

And here as well, which describes the PR spitfire (which, to refute a previous post, did NOT have armament)

http://www.aceflyer.com/cotton/flypast.html

And this also (because I couldn't be bothered with the link)
quote:COTTON, Sidney (1894-1969)


When Richhoven was shot down in WW1 he was found to be wearing a 'British' flying suit designed by a Queenslander who had many talents (including that of offending senior Air Ministry staff during WW2 !).Amy Johnson also wore one on her epic flights. He was a gifted inventor, fighter pilot, pioneer, undercover agent, intelligence expert and businessman, so he came to be known as the 'Magnificent Elizabethan' ! When quite young he designed and built a light car and the final drive was similar to that used by Frazer Nash cars later on. At 21 he became a R.N.A.S. pilot and with only 5 hours solo he was sent to the front line and it was there that he devised camouflage for aircraft, an upward firing gun mounting, long range bombing methods and other inventions. After the war he moved to Canada where aerial surveying and game spotting were developed. These activities were later developed into fields of aerial photography.Then,just before WW2,he toured Europe selling the Dufaycolour processing of colour film and taking aerial photographs of strategic sites of the Nazi war machine buildup for MI6. This allerted Churchill and others to what was going on.
Making friends with high German officials, he was an intermediary in trying to get Goering to fly to Britain to meet the then Prime Minister, but plans fell through and WW2 started.
He was a friend of Ian Fleming during WW2 and is said by some to be a model for 'James Bond'and an inspiration for some of 'Q's gadgets! He invented the Cottonising process which improved the 'photo-recee' Spitfire by 65 k.p.h. and had them painted in strange colours. He always trod on official toes (rather like Edgar Percival, described elsewhere), but was a great asset to the Allies war effort. ("True Australian Air Stories" by Terry Gwynn-Jones).

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hey Corsarius,

I an hacking myself sore fingertips to convince Simon about the favours of the FW 187, and what do you do? You put some cotton on the Spitfire and thus reduce nearly all drag!:)
Why was this only used on reconnoisaters, not on fighters? It could have turned the odds to the RAF and other Allied air forces in a by now unknown way!?!

[Lightning]

As usual, a blanket statement begs for contradiction (and deservedly so). Some photo-spits (not all) were armed. These were mostly the low-level types. The Type G, the P.R. Mk 7, and the P.R. Mk XIII are examples. In reading your link, Corsarius, I note that the ammo cans for the "inner guns" were removed to make room for the cameras. What about the other guns? Were they also removed? I personally don't know.

About the diving speed of 0.92M, I have read that too. How well is that documented? I know that there were claims in WWII of a P-38 having dove at 780 mph (!), and of a P-47 at 840 mph (!!), but ,of course, these claims were completely discredited. When he heard them, Tony Levier ("Mr. P-38") just laughed. He knew better. Critical Mach number rules.

Nobody would deny that the Spitfire was a speedy little aircraft, but
that does not offset the advantages of great flexibility of camera arrays and greater range that the Photo-Lightning enjoyed.

Two great motion pictures come to mind during this dicussion (both British):

* "The Malta Story" - Good photo-recce Spitfire scenes

* "Breaking the Sound Barrier" - Diving Spitfire approaches speed of sound. Somewhat fictionalized but entertaining nonetheless.

Thanks for the response, Corsarius; you have a way of making one think.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Romantic Technofreak

Hey Corsarius,

I an hacking myself sore fingertips to convince Simon about the favours of the FW 187, and what do you do? You put some cotton on the Spitfire and thus reduce nearly all drag!:)
Why was this only used on reconnoisaters, not on fighters? It could have turned the odds to the RAF and other Allied air forces in a by now unknown way!?!


I'm quite partial to the Blohm und Voss myself, but that's just my wierdness streak.

"Cottonising" was developed by Sidney Cotton, and didn't USE cotton, lol. Basically, as I understand it, the aircraft was coated very lightly with white clay or plaster of paris or something prior to each mission, then finely sanded back by hand. This covered all rivets and smoothed over external riveting, giving a much-needed boost to the pr-spit's speed. It needed to be reapplied laboriously pretty much after every flight due to vibration and wear and tear. You couldn't put it on ordinary fighters! Simply firing the guns would shake all that work loose!

[robert]

Seeing as the guidelines just asked for ten aircraft of all types, not for one of each role, here are my top ten...

1. Supermarine Spitfire. Had more effect on the air war, in more places, over more time, than any other aircraft. In the air-to-air short range fighter role, the most formidable piston-engined fighter in the world in 1940, and still the most formidable piston-engined fighter in the world in 1945.

2. Ilyushin Il-2. The best ground attack aircraft of the war, it broke the back of the German Army on the Eastern front.

3. Avro Lancaster. The most important heavy bomber of the war, it dropped a greater weight of bombs on Hitler's Fortress Europe than any other type. The only bomber to carry the 22,000 lb "Grand Slam."

4. North American P-51 Mustang. The aircraft most responsible for the success of the American daylight bomber offensive, and the best long range escort fighter of the war.

5. De Havilland Mosquito. The most versatile aircraft of the war. A great night fighter, strike aircraft, and recce aircraft, and as a bomber it could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs to Berlin - the same as a B-17F!

6. Boeing B-29 Superfortress. Technically the most advanced bomber to see significant service, it contributed hugely to the defeat of the Japanese, not only by dropping the A-bombs, but by the relentless bombing campaign conducted on Japanese cities.

7. Messerschmitt Bf 109. Shot down more aircraft than any other plane in history. The Fw 190 was probably a "better" fighter, but the Bf 109 accomplished more.

8. Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Outclassed by the Hellcat from 1943 onward, but the A6M was the single weapon most responsible for the early Japanese victories. The first naval fighter to be better than almost any other contemporary land-based fighter.

9. Douglas SBD Dauntless. Not the sexiest of airplanes, but the SBD changed the course of the Pacific war at Midway, and makes the list for that alone.

10. Douglas C-47 Skytrain/Dakota. Not a combat type, but where would the Allies have been without the C-47's ability to move troops and goods?

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning



About the diving speed of 0.92M, I have read that too. How well is that documented? I know that there were claims in WWII of a P-38 having dove at 780 mph (!), and of a P-47 at 840 mph (!!), but ,of course, these claims were completely discredited. When he heard them, Tony Levier ("Mr. P-38") just laughed. He knew better. Critical Mach number rules.



The speed is as well documented as it's possible to get, because it was done by a pilot of the Royal Air Force Establishment Aero Flight during a dive test, with an aircraft fitted with special instrumentation to measure air speed.

The flights were part of series of test made in early 1944 at Farnborough to compare the diving speeds of the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire pilot was Squadron Leader Tony Martindale, who used Spitfire PR.XIs PL827 and EN409.

On April 27, 1944, Martindale was diving EN409 from 40,000 feet when the propeller and reduction gear tore away from the Spitfire at Mach 0.91. In an extraordinary display of airmanship, Martindale managed to glide the aircraft back to base and land safely!

[Lightning]

Read your posting with great interest. Why did the prop tear away? If it was the result of entry into compressibility, then the aircraft was beyond its capability, and its recovery was just a matter of luck as well as skill.

What were the results of the Mustang's testing?

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Read your posting with great interest. Why did the prop tear away? If it was the result of entry into compressibility, then the aircraft was beyond its capability, and its recovery was just a matter of luck as well as skill.

What were the results of the Mustang's testing?


Highest speed recorded for the Mustang during this test was Mach 0.80 at 17,000 ft in a dive from 28,000 ft.

In regard to Martindale's accident, the constant speed unit that controlled the prop failed, and caused the the prop to overspeed - this tore off the prop and reduction gear. I don't believe it had anything to do with compressibility per se.

[Corsarius]

Hey, PMN1! Can you put your oar in on this one please? I would like to know what your mix and match air force would hold!

[Corsarius]

*bump*
Because Simon wanted me to.

And because I want to see more entries. Feel free to pit your force against anyone else's who has already posted!

[simon]

Just to liven it up a bit, what about people's Play-to-lose Fantasy airforces as well?

The 10 aircraft that you would really hope your opponents air arms were equipped with and why...

Many of these will probably already be covered in the "Worst..." threads that are out there, but this may be an appropriate place to bring them all together.

For practical purposes I suggest the limitation that the types chosen must have been in squadron service during the period of September 1939 to August 1945 in order to qualify. Prototypes, experimentals and pre-production models do not count.

[Corsarius]

Okay, I'm game.

Please remember that this air-force of SUCK may well be modified at any time, as this is going off the top of my head....

1) Dive bomber: Blackburn Roc
2) Fighter: Any of the Caudron Cyclone series (I could say "hawker Demon", as that was still a front-line fighter in Australia when war broke out). A certain product from a company rhyming with "rooster" and named after a large heavy cow would be well placed here, too.
3) Heavy Bomber: A tough one... hmmm... I'll pick the Whitley. Venerable, vulnerable, and funny-looking.
4) Carrier bomber: Curtiss Helldiver. I don't like it, neither did it's crews, or anyone else, really.
5) Carrier fighter: I was going to be funny and say Bf-109T, but actually they were rather good fighters, so... hmm..
6) Jet fighter: Saab J21R.. utterly awful
7) Recon etc... Avia B534
8) Boeng P-26.. because I still hate it
9) Defensive fighter: Boulton-paul defiant
10) Air supremacy fighter: Fiat CR.41

Now if you'd let me play with prototypes and non-squadron aircraft, then I could REALLY give you a force of suck to be proud of!

[Ricky]

Ok, here's my Best:

Fighter: Nakajima Ki 84 Hayate – fast, manoeverable, well armoured and armed, it was at least the equal of the best the Allies had.

Interceptor: Hmmm… Me.163, provided they got that throttle problem ironed out.... If not, Me 262, provided they got the engine reliability sorted out!

Reconnaissance: Mitsubishi Ki-43 Dinah, no question. Despite being a pre-war design, they were still darn hard to intercept in 1945, and continued giving good, reliable recon for the Japanese up until the surrender. Plus it is easily the most graceful/beautiful plane from WW2 (with the possible exception of the early Spits).

Strategic Bomber: Despite my soft spot for the old Lancaster / Halifax duo, it has to be the B-29. Go look at the ‘Best Bomber’ thread for why!

Tactical Bomber: Henschel Hs.129 – underpowered, I admit, and with a rather limited view for the pilot, but very effective. And well armoured for plane/pilot survivability.

Fighter-Bomber: Typhoon. Awesome punch (with rockets it could deliver more firepower than a broadside from the average heavy cruiser!) and beautifully pugnacious looks.

Transport: Arado Ar232 – a wonderful pod & boom transport (very popular layout post-war, so can’t be all bad), which could carry 4,500kg (9,921lb) of payload for 1050km (660 miles) at 288kph (180mph). It also featured a unique arrangement of 22 small wheels, giving excellent rough-field capability, along with the nickname ‘millipede’. Defensive armament of 10 machine guns and 1 20mm cannon was not to be sneezed at either.

Seaplane: Blackburn B20, a conventional-looking design, but with a lower hull that extended out to form the main ‘float’ – therefore the seaplane had a much ‘shallower’ profile in flight compared to its contemporaries, which meant that it was much faster and a fair bit longer-ranged than comparable types. However, it never got into service, So it probably doesn’t count. Ok then, the good old ‘Flying Porcupine’ (Short Sunderland).

Torpedo Bomber: Well, the Torbeau (Beaufighter with Torpedo) did a very good job, but my preference is the Aichi B7A1 Ryusei. It appeared late on in the war, when the Japanese Industry & Air Force were coming apart a little, so despite it’s huge potential as a fast, versatile aircraft (not unlike a Ju88, really) it never actually achieved a great deal in practice.

Nightfighter: Probably the Mosquito. The P-61 was as good (arguably better) but I just prefer the Mossie, mainly because it just seems less of a lumbering beast (I know the P-61 wasn’t!).

And now my Worst:

Fighter: Boulton-Paul Defiant. Well, what do you expect if you take a plane roughly equivalent to the Hurricane then stick a turret & gunner in it! All was fine if your opponent inadvertently attacked from behind, but enter any kind of a dogfight and basically you’re a statistic.

Interceptor: Bachem Natter (can’t remember the designation), but essentially a booster rocket with a jettisonable cockpit. Armament, a noseful of rockets. But, again, did not get into squadron service. So how about the Mig 1 / 3? A credible attempt to make an interceptor by bolting the biggest engine they could find onto an airframe. However, despite various upgrades, it never rose above mediocre.

Reconnaissance: Controversial choice – the Westland Lysander. A very good plane, but the concept of a ‘heavy’ recon plane just did not work (even the Henschel Hs126 was not all that great) – witness the popularity of the Storch / Auster / Piper types.

Strategic Bomber: Amiot 222 (or almost any of the Heavy Bombers that France started the war with!)

Tactical Bomber: L.W.S.4 Zubr – could not take off with anything but a ‘light’ bombload, and had a distressing tendency to fall apart…

Fighter-Bomber: Breda Ba.88 Lynx. Was a good plane until they added the military equipment. It speaks volumes that the Italians used it more as a decoy than a plane. It even eclipses the Fairy Battle in combat non-survivability!

Transport: To be honest, there were no out & out ‘bad’ transports that I can think of. Maybe (for the sake of controversy) the Me 321 – it had to be towed by a trio of Bf 110’s (very very difficult!) or by a twin He 111. It was a good-sized transport, but slow & a nice big target.

Seaplane: Saro Lerwick. Small, tubby, slow, just poor all round!

Torpedo Bomber: Blackburn Botha. Dangerously underpowered. Well, just dangerous all round, really.

Nightfighter: Bristol Blenhiem. Actually not horribly bad, and in fact a Blenhiem scored the first ever airborne radar directed ‘kill’, but it was really just underpowered & underarmed for the role.

[simon]

Here's my own Airforce of Suck:

1) "Heavy" bomber - Avro Manchester, because they probably suffered more losses to their own engines than enemy action!

2) Dive bomber - Heinkel He177 Greif, too big to be a dive bomber, but that didn't stop the RLM from making it part of the specification.

3) Fighter - Blackburn Roc, it speaks volumes for the capabilities of this aircraft that it's use during the Battle of Britain was limited to static AA! Even more ineffective than the BP Defiant!

4) Rocket Fighter - Me163 Komet. Sorry Corsarius, but this makes my list for the simple reason that the two operational Gruppe suffered more losses in combat than kills they claimed. Any fighter that's more dangerous to it's pilots than the aircraft it's supposed to be shooting down I'd want in my enemy's arsenal.

5) Torpedo Bomber - Blackburn Botha. As already covered a dismal and dangerous aircraft to fly, it's only successful use was as insructional airframes to trainee mechanics!

6) Light Bomber / Fighter Bomber - Breda Ba88 Lynx. Again already covered.

7) Carrier Fighter - A6M2 Zero. Yes I know it had an impressive reputation but the lack of pilot protection in Japanese planes as a whole led to a decimation in the quality of the Japanese airforce as a whole.

8) Jet Fighter - Meteor MkI. A jet fighter slower and less manouevrable than contemporary Piston engined planes! What is the point?

9) Twin Engine Bomber - Mitsubishi G4M Betty. A great combat aircraft until it actually encountered combat, then it had a disturbing tendancy to catch fire and fall apart.

10) Seaplane - Saro Lerwick. Dismal performance in the air and on water, the seaplane equivilant of the Botha.

I didn't include the category of transport because as Ricky said there weren't any really bad ones, possibly the Bristol Buckingham, and as far as Carrier Divebombers and Torpedo Bombers went most had a redeeming feature or two.

[Notta Brit]

My worst.

Blohm und Voss Bv-222 Viking. Twice the size of a B-29, but a tenth as effective.
Curtiss P-40. The flying tigers were good, seeing that their plane stank.
Bell P-39. A 37 mm cannon, and that was it that was of any use.
Brewster Buffalo.[xx(] A fighter that flew like a house.
Bachem Ba-349 Natter. The Thing is worse than an Me-163.
Farman F-222.[xx(][xx(] A big pile of garbage. It was french.
PZL P.11. I'm polish, and I still think it stank.
2 Heinkel Jets. They weren't effective. The 162 Looked like a present day A-10, and the 280 tended to blow up. Did I mention that the 162 was made of plywood?
Henschel Hs.132. The He-162 of Henschel. It Blew up, too.

[Notta Brit]

My Best.

Boeing B-29. Longer range than any other wartime bomber,and just as good as the Lancaster.
Ilyushin Il-2. Better than the stuka in many ways.
North American P-51. the best American fighter in the war.
C-47. Durable and fast. Planes still look like it today, exepy they're way bigger.
Me-262. The only useable jet in the war other than the Ar-234.
P-47 and Spitfire. The best British plane and the best overall Fighter-Bomber. Done deal.
F4U Corsair. A great plane with as long of range as a Mustang.
Bf-109 and Fw-190. Two great german masterpieces.

If I had two more planes, I'd pick the Zero and Italian Veltro.

[GregP]

1 - 5. Fighters: Spitfire, Fw 190 series, P-51, Bf 109, Kawasaki Ki-100 series. Sould be self explanatory. Maybe the Reggianne Re 2005 Saggitario, Fiat G.55, or Macchi MC 202 instead of one of them: Great looking planes with very good performance. The Re 2005 was a Seversky P-35 derivative with a DB engine and it worked GREAT.

6. Aichi B7A1 Torpedo Bomber: Fast and powerful, but Japan ran out of aircraft carriers before it flew.

7. Heavy Bomber: B-29. Should be self explanatory. If B-29s were not available, I'd take Lancasters. Slightly slower, but tremendously effective. No Zubr need apply (worst bomber thread).

8. Night Fighter: He-219 Owl. Fast, radard-equipped, and effective. I would also take the Northrop P-61 Black Widow in lieu of it. Same description.

9. Transport: Douglas C-47 Dakota. Self explanatory. Honorable mention to the Curtiss C-46.

10. Observation: Nakajima C6N Saiun (Myrt). It could show a pretty clean pair of heels to any Allied pursuers in the Pacific, and a P-51 would have had a hard time catching it.

In my worst airforce, I'd have to include:

1. Mitsubishi G4M and G6M Betty Bombers: The flying lighters. Just give them a reason to burn, and they WOULD. Expect for that characteristic, they weren't bad. The thing is, the DID have that characteristic.

2. Heinkel He-177 Grief. It didn't even need enemy action to burn. Ignition was as certain as engine start.

3. Almost any French warplane, but not all. The Dewoitine D.520 was pretty good and gave a good account of itself before France fell.

4. PZL-11. Can you say "Bad idea?" The later IAR-80 / 81s were descendents of the PZL-11, but were good planes.

5. Messerschmitt Me-323 Gigant. A neat idea marred by the reality if actually trying to build it without air superiority. In peacetime, it would be OK but in wartime, it was a coffin for the crew and cargo.

6. Bachem Natter. Deadly to all who were near it when flight was attempted. Probably almost nearly as dangerous when simply fueled and awaiting flight attempts.

7. I am torn between including the Me-163 Comet in "bad" planes or "good" planes. It had the unique distinction of being able to dissolve its pilot completely without assistance from ground personnel, and was a very neat pyrotechnic show when landed hard with partial fuel left. The explosions were spectacular to everyone except the pilot.

8. Brewster Buffalo. The plane is just WRONG. Almost as bad as a fighter aircraft as Goering was as a forward-thinking leader of men.

9. Blackburn Roc or Skua. These palnes were simply bad, not really dangerous or deadly. If not nad, they were severely mediocre.

10. Kalinin Ka-7. Flight was a death sentence .... OR L.W.S.Zubr: just too terrible to recount all its shortcomings. See the "Worst Bomber" thread.

[Corsarius]

I want to add my 'worst carrier fighter'. I wanted to say the Zero-sen, but I hadn't. My reasons are the same as Simon's. Great plane early on, but suffered from numerous problems. In "Samurai" by Saburo Sakai, he referrs to flying Zeros in 1945, and that he is still using hand signals and waving arms to communicate with fellow pilots, as no radios was often still the standard! How can you effectively counter things such as the "thach weave" without good and fast communication?

[Ricky]

Ok guys - enough knocking the poor Skua!
Yes, it stunk as fighter (well, what do you expect), but it was a handy little dive-bomber.

Oh, feel free to cast scorn on the ROC at any time.
A Defiant, but 100mph slower? Nice plane...[:p]

[simon]

Greg, the B6N was a carrier torpedo bomber, the replacement to the B5N2 Kate. I believe the observation aircraft you refer to was the C6N, although I can't remember the name but "Seiran" rings a bell. Very similar to the B6N and B5N in appearance if my memory serves me right.

[simon]

Notta Brit, I can't help feeling that you're missing the point with the Bv222 Viking. It was not supposed to be a strategic bomber, it was supposed to be a flying boat, which it was and a very good one at that. Your comparisson between it and the B-29 is about as fair as comparing the bombload of the Lancaster or Halifax to that of the Short Sunderland, and using that to prove what a bad plane the Sunderland was!

I think Greg's comments on the P-39/P-400 are probably the most accurate. The British and US used it as an interceptor, and hated it. The Soviets used it as a Low level dogfighter (For which it was optimised) and ground attack and loved it. Was it really bad? Probably not, we just used it wrong, or perhaps more accurately, didn't really have a used for it.

As for the Me262 being the only usable jet apart from the Ar234, what about the Meteor? OK, it was inferior to the Me262, but as for not being usable...?

[Notta Brit]

I dunno, it's just my list. The viking was also huge, which made it an easy target.

[simon]

Agreed it's your list, you can put whatever you want on it. It's just that your reasoning to me at least doesn't make sense. Yes the Viking was big and it did not carry a huge bombload, but at the risk of repeating myself it wasn't supposed to, and those facts don't make it a bad plane.

[Notta Brit]

I thought it over, and I'm gonna replace it with the Blackburn Skua, which was another bad plane, even worse than the Roc.

[simon]

Given that the Roc was basically a Skua with a four gun Boulton Paul turret in place of the latter's forward firing armament, and that the Skua did have some successes, such as the sinking of the Konigsberg, why replace a poor aircraft with a dismal one. Sure the Skua could hardly be counted among the best fighters of the war, but the Roc was infinitely worse!

[Notta Brit]

Fairey Battle

[simon]

Yep I'll give you that one. ;)

A complete waste of a Merlin.

[Ricky]

Agreed - and apparently it made a vicious trainer, it addition to a bomber of dubious efficiency.
:(

[boron50]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning


Thanks for the welcome,Corsarius. Well,here goes:

Fighter: P-38 Lightning (Surprise!)

Bomber: B-17 'Fortress

Transport: C-47 Skytrain (Dakota)

Carrier Fighter: F4U Corsair

Light Bomber: Mosquito

Attack A/C: A-26 Invader

Night Fighter: P-61 Black Widow

Photo/Recon: F4/F5 Lightning (Surprise again!)

Medium Bomber: B-26 Marauder (Built in Baltimore, 10 miles from
where I live)

Dive Bomber: JU-87 Stuka (Sorry, Romantic T.F.)
SBD Dauntless (Can't make up my mind)


Well,that's my 10 (Count the last two as 1/2 each). I know there will be disaggreements, but that's what makes a dogfight.

Best regards all.

[boron50]

Here's a "best of list from a new member: 1)fighter-P51 mustang 2)heavy bomber-B29 superfortress 3)med bomber-B26 marauder 4)light bomber-mosquito 5)torpedo bomber-aichi B7A-2 "Grace" 6)dive bomber-Ju87 stuka 7)carrier fighter-F4U corsair 8)night fighter-HE219 Uhu 9)ground attack-IL2M3 sturmovik 10)transport-C47 dakota 11)recon-Mitsubishi KI46III Dinah 12)all purpose-Petlyakov PE-2

[simon]

Good list, I can't really fault any of your choices.

I think most of them are pretty self explanatory, but how about why you choose them as well?

[Mark J]

I'll start from the bottom with my training/utility aircraft

Tiger Moth ... a very good basic trainer, for the first dozen or so hours or until the new pilots go solo.
T-6 Texan or Harvard ... secondary trainer so good at it's job that it's still training pilots today.
Lyndsayer ... Army support, liason, light transport, search and rescue.
Lockheed Hudson ... multi engine pilot training, flight crew training, short to medium transport, light patrol bomber, search & rescue.

Transport

C-47/Dc-3 ... time has proven them, many of us have been aloft in one of these classics.

Point defence fighter & short range escort

Spitfire ... the mk 14 was the wartime ultimate. great dogfighter, high climb rate, very good firepower, very good altitude. Also a very good PR plane.

Long range escort fighter

P-51 Mustang ... a good allrounder with the Spitfires altitude but with incredible endurance. another good PR plane

Heavy Bomber

Avro Lancaster ... Good range, very heavy bomb load, tough airframe.

Light/Medium bomber

Mosquito ... High speed, long range, can be used as fighter bomber, PR plane, night fighter

Fighter bomber

Very hard decision but probably either the F4U Corsair or the FW-190. The corsair has the advantage of being a carrier aircraft which could well tip the scales. Both are radial powered, tough, good fighters, can carry good ordanance and both fly well with drop tanks. At first I thought of the Typhoon/Tempest or Il-2 but they all have water cooled engines and the Il-2 is to slow for me.
Maybe I'll break the rules and include both aircraft...

Thats my 10 aircraft. Torpedo aircraft ..... well the Mosquito and fighter bomber can take care of that, perhaps even the Hudson. Notice how four of the five frontline aircraft have Rolls Royce Merlin engines. With these planes in my airforce, I should manage any situation. :)

[Mark J]

Hold the war!!!!!!

I forgot one:)

PBY Catalina ... Navy liason, patrol, anti submarine, mine laying, transport, search & rescue.

[azrael]

Been thinking about this for a bit, 10 is not all that many, especially if you want to cover all roles. But here it comes:

1) Interceptor/Short-range escort fighter: Spitfire series
obvious reasons, could run with the best throughout the war.
also made for a great PR plane and could (if neccessary) act
as a mediocre fighter-bomber. I am tempted to choose the FW190
series here, as they were almost as good as a pure fighter
and made for outstanding fighter-bombers.
2) Long-range escort: P-51 Mustang
THE long-range escort of the war.
3) Light/Medium bomber: Mosquito
if it could be produced in decent numbers
4) Heavy Bomber: Lancaster
better than the B-24 or B-17 in my opinion, and I want to bomb
targets before the (far) better B-29 becomes available in 6/44
5) Ground attack: IL-2
Nothing else could shoot up tanks like the Shturmovic
6) Transport: C-47
'nuff said, where there any others?
7) Ocean Patrol: H8K Emily
No competition from any other plane, better range, better
payload and better defensive armament than any of the rest
8) Battlefield Recon/Liaison: Fi-156 Storch
Next best thing to a helicopter and needs less space to land
9) Strategic Recon: Ki-46
Fast, long-ranged, basically immune to interception
10) Nightfighter: He-219 Uhu
Best nightfighter of the war and beloved by those that had to
fly them and needed them, the German nightfighter crews.

That is my list, no space for trainers left I am afraid. I did not include any carrier-borne aircraft as they are a completely different breed and many of the belligerents did not need them anyways. So if I had to also equip my carriers I would choose:
1) Fighter: F4F Wildcat
Yes, the Hellcat was better, no doubt about it, but I need
something to protect my flattops during Coral Sea, Midway and
the rest of the war before the Hellcat shows up in mid-43
2) Dive-bomber: SBD Dauntless
There IS no competition.
3) Torpedo-bomber: TBM Avenger
The Grace or Jill would have been better but again, I need
something early on or there are no carriers left to fly from.
4) Recon: Fairey Firefly

[Falco]

1.Junkers Ju 87 StuKa (all)
----------------------
2.Messerschmitt Bf 109 Gustav
3.SIAI-Marcetti SM 79 Sparviero
4.Douglas C 47 Dakota
5.Junkers Ju 52/3
6.Fairey Swordfish
7.Mitsubishi A6M Raisen
8.Dewoitine D 520
9.Brewster F2F Buffalo
10.Junkers Ju 88

2-10.place at random order

[DoBravery]

1 Corsair - For my #1 fighter I'd prefer something rugged with a powerful engine. More often than not, Corsairs could choose their battles with the Japanese. U.S.M.C.
2 Me 262 - It's a jet. New goggles 5 Franks, Me262 thousands of Franks, seeing the look on allied pilot's faces after their first jet encounter. . . Priceless.
3 P-47 - Great multi role plane. One of the best planes to get you out of trouble faster than you got yourself into it. It's stronger than the Corsair (Armor, Armement, Diving), but I think the Corsair maneuvers better and had a bigger advantage over the Japanese, than the P-47 with the Germans. (I know there were some P-47's in the Pacific)
4 Spitfire - When thinking of the BoB. You must choose your pistol one way or the other.
5 B25 - Foreward mounted machine guns, skip bombing and strafing Japanese transports.
6 Bf109 F - I've heard of all the 109's the F was a real pilot's plane and fought well against Spits, Hurries, and P-40's in N. Africa.
7 Stuka "Tank Buster" - Even if you don't like the Stuka, you must admit this was a pretty cool version.
8 Hawker Tempest - Among the faster British planes, when possible they were the prefered unit to chase down and intercept or wing-tip flip V2 buzz bombs.
9 Ju-88 - Of the German medium bombers it probably had the best flight attributes. Level bombing, dive bombing, even bomber interceptor, it was definately the most versitle.
10 Frank/George - I don't know enough of them to decide which I'd prefer, but both were well armed with 4x20mm and had better protection/self sealing tanks. Two categories Japanese planes tended to be deprived of.

I think Russian planes were designed for exactly what they need to be, I just haven't read enough about them yet. Like many the P-51 was my first favorite.

[Johnny G]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery


8 Hawker Tempest - Among the faster British planes, when possible they were the prefered unit to chase down and intercept or wing-tip flip V2 buzz bombs.


V2 buzz bombs?! They'd have to go bl**dy fast to catch one of them, and into a low orbit as well!!;)
You mean V1 buzz bombs, more commonly known as 'Doodlebugs'. The V2 was a big rocket.

[Johnny G]

I thought it's about time I put up my own private airforce, so here goes. I'll stick to types that were used commonly in WW2, not experimental types or v.late war German/Allied jets/rockets. I want types that had good service records and extensive combat experience.


Fighters: Spitfire MkXIV's for defensive duties and fighter sweeps and P-51's to escort my bombers to long range targets.

Fighter bombers: Has to be Typhoons for me. 4x20mm cannons plus bombs or rockets could make a mess of armoured targets. I'd have some Beaufighters in an anti-shipping role.

Ground attack: IL-2M3, the one with 2x30mm cannons. A v.useful aircraft and v.tough.

Photo recon: P/R Mosquito.

Light bomber: Mosquito again.

Medium bomber: B-26.

Heavy bomber: Avro Lancaster, due to its big bomb bay. In a perfect world I like to fit better defensive armament.

Nightfighter: Mosquito again again.

Maritime patrol: Sunderland's and B-24's.

Transports: Hard to say, all similar. So lets say C-47 'cos it was used so much.

Carrier fighter: Hellcats, well suited to carrier ops.

Carrier strike: Avengers.

[DoBravery]

Thanks JohnnyG. I know the difference, I was posting from work and I guess I was just excited about finding a WWII aircraft forum.

[Lightning]

Hi DoBravery,

Welcome to the best WWII aviation forum on the Net. We all look forward to your making it even better.

Regards,
Lightning