PDA

View Full Version : other then the Spitfire.....



rhinomonkey
10-10-2008, 07:47 AM
What was the best WW2 single seat fighter?

Xiolablu3
10-10-2008, 08:04 AM
Me262, even with the Spitfire included.

b2spirita
10-10-2008, 08:05 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

TinyTim
10-10-2008, 08:09 AM
The mother of all threads revived!

Nah, xiola, Me262 was only good for n00bish luftpussies who didn't know anything else but to hit and then run like a whining girl!

Ki-27 or Gladiator were the best WW2 fighter coz they outturn them all!! Air forces simply wanted to give their pilots a real challenge and didn't want to have superior planes as this would be unfair, that's why they progressively developed less and less maneouverable planes like P-47 and Me262.

Mr_Zooly
10-10-2008, 08:24 AM
OH nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

No41Sqn_Banks
10-10-2008, 08:39 AM
Seafire?

BGs_Ricky
10-10-2008, 08:48 AM
P11c. Be sure.

Pigeon_
10-10-2008, 08:50 AM
I agree, P11c

foxyboy1964
10-10-2008, 08:52 AM
Everybody on the forum agrees it's the 190.

fly_zo
10-10-2008, 09:05 AM
...anyone which takes you back safe and sound http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

KRISTORF
10-10-2008, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by foxyboy1964:
Everybody on the forum agrees it's the 190.

Do they????, news to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

foxyboy1964
10-10-2008, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by KRISTORF:
Do they????, news to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif That's because you spend all your time skinning every aircraft the RAF ever flew. When you going to do some 190s (not captured ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)?

KRISTORF
10-10-2008, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by foxyboy1964:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KRISTORF:
Do they????, news to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif That's because you spend all your time skinning every aircraft the RAF ever flew. When you going to do some 190s (not captured ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Splutter, cough........Do what???

Wash your mouth out young man http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

foxyboy1964
10-10-2008, 10:05 AM
What, never? That's a pity. I've got loads of your Spits and Tempests, very nice they are too. I've always thought it would be nice to have some 190s done in your style. If you ever change your mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HayateAce
10-10-2008, 10:11 AM
Tempest.

Clips 190 tails off like a razor.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

McHilt
10-10-2008, 11:16 AM
Gentlemen, the fact is that even if there were to be a Best fighterplane ever it still depends highly on the brain that's flying the machine...
(Man, we've discussed this 1001 times before)
Personally I think the La-7 (as modeled in IL-2) blows away the competition of that particular era hands down IF in capable hands of course.
anyway fly what you love best...

and have fun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

PhantomKira
10-10-2008, 11:21 AM
La-7 - Likely true, because, as I recall, Oleg was/is highly biased toward Soviet aircraft, and modeled them better. I've read tons about "Soviet aircraft are modeled better, others are under-modeled" here on the forum.

As for me, I can't say, as I don't fly Soviet often at all.

Monty_Thrud
10-10-2008, 11:47 AM
Gentlemen, the fact is that even if there were to be a Best fighterplane ever it still depends highly on the brain that's flying the machine...(Man, we've discussed this 1001 times before)


OOOW! you little liar, you've only got 11 posts... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It was a lend lease Me262...and a Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

McHilt
10-10-2008, 11:59 AM
OOOW! you little liar, you've only got 11 posts... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


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

M_Gunz
10-10-2008, 12:08 PM
Monty, from current events that one is a name-changed someone else.

Proper answer to the first post by any fighter pilot is "Whatever I'M flying!". Duh!

TinyTim
10-10-2008, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">La-7 - Likely true, because, as I recall, Oleg was/is highly biased toward Soviet aircraft, and modeled them better.</span> I've read tons about "Soviet aircraft are modeled better, others are under-modeled" here on the forum.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">As for me, I can't say, as I don't fly Soviet often at all.</span>

I really don't want to sound rude, but the second yellow sentence perfectly explains first one. Yes, late Russian planes (namely Yak-3, Yak-9U and La5FN/7) are probably best in this sim for a low to medium alt dogfighting and achieving aerial supremacy over the battlefield - and guess what! Historically they were as well! Now try to tangle with a Yak (save 9U) or La up at 8km altitude. They'll be eaten alive by P-51, P-47, Spit, Bf109 even Fw190.

Most cockpit off externals on servers favor low alt turn and burn style combat, simply because players are too eager to kill kill kill that they are not patient enough to climb to good alt. Such an environment of course favors Russian planes.

McHilt
10-10-2008, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Monty, from current events that one is a name-changed someone else.

Proper answer to the first post by any fighter pilot is "Whatever I'M flying!". Duh!

Duh!
215 + 14 = 229... in 4 years
Rest of my time I'm devoted to this:
http://www.avhilten.com/index.html

McHilt
10-10-2008, 12:25 PM
Now try to tangle with a Yak (save 9U) or La up at 8km altitude. They'll be eaten alive by P-51, P-47, Spit, Bf109 even Fw190.
Not in this sim baby http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crucislancer
10-10-2008, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Tempest.

Clips 190 tails off like a razor.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

+1 (including the Spitfire or not)

M_Gunz
10-10-2008, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by McHilt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Monty, from current events that one is a name-changed someone else.

Proper answer to the first post by any fighter pilot is "Whatever I'M flying!". Duh!

Duh!
215 + 14 = 229... in 4 years
Rest of my time I'm devoted to this:
http://www.avhilten.com/index.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhh, look I was addressing TWO different things there.

1st was that whoever you are, you had a different name here previously as you announced openly.
Whoever you were, I dunno and I didn't see you say anywhere, it's a mystery to me but I have
no beef with you that I know of and not looking to start one.

2nd thing that I should have put lines and warnings between that and the first is my answer
to the thread question:

For fighter pilots the answer to which plane is best should be "Whatever I'M flying!".

Freiwillige
10-10-2008, 04:31 PM
Spitfire the best WWII fighter ever? Close this book and never open again!

In two weeks it will be the 109 be sure.

All joking aside my vote is for the 190 series

M_Gunz
10-10-2008, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
In two weeks it will be the 109 be sure.

LOL! More like 2 PAGES!

R_Target
10-10-2008, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
In two weeks it will be the 109 be sure.

LOL! More like 2 PAGES! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More like two posts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Yippee.
10-10-2008, 06:19 PM
P47 baby!

WOLFPLAYER2007
10-10-2008, 06:36 PM
Fw190

Fast, excellent firepower, good armor...

Spitfire was just more maneuverable

M_Gunz
10-10-2008, 06:54 PM
It depends on how you define maneuverable.
Eric Schilling of the AVG made a solid case for the P-40 being highly maneuverable.
The FW's have better roll rate than the P-40's.

It's a matter of how fast you can orient your lift vector and change that lift while moving
with enough speed to make multiple G's of lift. Speed and roll rate at speed is essential.
A high roll rate at low speed isn't useless but....

Just bookmark this page. (http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html)


When I said that I could prove that the P-40 was more
maneuverable than the Zero, several promptly challenged me and
asked for my proof. I hope the following will satisfy their
challenge.

But first of all, one must know the definition of maneuverability
so here's Webster's.

1. To perform a movement in military or naval tactics in order
to secure an advantage.
2. An intended and controlled variation from a straight and
level flight path in the operation of an aircraft.
3. To make a series of changes in direction and position for
a specific purpose.
4. Evasive movement or shift of tactics.
5. To manage into or out of a position or condition.
6. To bring about or secure as a result of skillful management.

As you can see, a comparison of roll is the most important
attribute an airplane must posses in being more maneuverable than
another one. Turning in a tight turn has absolutely nothing to do
concerning maneuverability.


Well, I'd say a tight turn is a slower way to change direction but that's just me.

Xiolablu3
10-10-2008, 07:07 PM
Whether or not its included in 'manouverabilty' or not, I would still argue that turning tight is an extememly useful asset for a WW2 fighter aircraft, and I know that many very succesful Fighter pilots of WW2 thought the same.

Just one example is Adolf Gallnd when he asked for his 'Squadron of Spitfires', he explains why in his book..

'...the Spitfire, which although a little slower was much more manouverable. Our advantage was in flying straight ahead, diving and climbing, our turns were not tight enough'

This is why he asked Goering for a 'Squdron of SPitfires' when Goering asked him to close-escort the bombers. I could cite many many others who valued turn-rate, but I wont waste my time as many have probably read them themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdJyLx4aqI&feature=related

Not saying its the most important thing, but it IS extremely useful. It MUST be:- we are seeing thrust vectoring even on todays fast jets, even tho some argue turning tightly is not important on a fighter. Adding that much weight and complicated engineering for thrust vectoring is not done on a whim. Does it have any other use except aiding turn rate?

M_Gunz
10-10-2008, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Whether or not its included in 'manouverabilty' or not, I would still argue that turning tight is an extememly useful asset for a WW2 fighter aircraft, and I know that many very succesful Fighter pilots of WW2 thought the same.

Just one example is Adolf Gallnd when he asked for his 'Squadron of Spitfires', he explains why in his book..

'...the Spitfire, which although a little slower was much more manouverable. Our advantage was in flying straight ahead, diving and climbing, our turns were not tight enough'

This is why he asked Goering for a 'Squdron of SPitfires' when Goering asked him to close-escort the bombers. I could cite many many others who valued turn-rate, but I wont waste my time as many have probably read them themselves.

Not saying its the most important thing, but it IS extremely useful. It MUST be:- we are seeing thrust vectoring even on todays fast jets, even tho some argue turning tightly is not important on a fighter.

Arrrggg! He explained fully about that, it was response to orders to stay with the bombers.
At stay with the bombers speed the Spitfire is more maneuverable than the 109 so in that case
Spitfires would serve better. At free hunt speed he would not need Spitfires. In his full
explanation it becomes clear while that quote taken out of context becomes the basis for what
he never said or meant. The Spitfire is better suited tactically to Fat Hermann's lame order.

Xiolablu3
10-10-2008, 07:19 PM
As I said he is just ONE person who valued manouerabilty and turn rate in certain situations. Do youi really want me to go through my books and stuff picking out parts where pilots emphasised how important turn rate is? I'm sure you dont and I cant be bothered anyway,

I can be bothered to cut and paste this link for now as you must have missed it from Spitfire Ace George Unwin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdJyLx4aqI&feature=related

McHilt
10-10-2008, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by McHilt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Monty, from current events that one is a name-changed someone else.

Proper answer to the first post by any fighter pilot is "Whatever I'M flying!". Duh!

Duh!
215 + 14 = 229... in 4 years
Rest of my time I'm devoted to this:
http://www.avhilten.com/index.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhh, look I was addressing TWO different things there.

1st was that whoever you are, you had a different name here previously as you announced openly.
Whoever you were, I dunno and I didn't see you say anywhere, it's a mystery to me but I have
no beef with you that I know of and not looking to start one.

2nd thing that I should have put lines and warnings between that and the first is my answer
to the thread question:

For fighter pilots the answer to which plane is best should be "Whatever I'M flying!". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good Gunz..... Good.

M_Gunz
10-10-2008, 07:21 PM
We don't have Spit I's in IL2 so compare the Spit VB with a 109F-2 or F-4 in IL2C for turn time.
What happens at about 340 kph?

redhornet07
10-10-2008, 10:11 PM
I don't really think it is possible to ascertain what "the best fighter of WW2" is at all. For one there were just so damn many of them. The only thing we can do is judge each fighter based on the circumstances in which it fought throughout the war. To say one fighter is better than another in all situations is silly and unrealistic.

In my opinion, what WW2 fighters proved was that the quality of the pilot was far more important than the machine he was flying. Put a well trained, motivated, disciplined and experienced pilot behind the controls of any capable fighter and 99% of the time that pilot will do very well.

M_Gunz
10-11-2008, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by McHilt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For fighter pilots the answer to which plane is best should be "Whatever I'M flying!".
Good Gunz..... Good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's another one: How do you tell if there's a fighter pilot at a party?
Answer: You don't have to, he'll tell you!

And: "Mommy, when I grow up I want to be a fighter pilot!"
"Now son, you can't do both."

I got those straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, he used to fly F-16's!

PhantomKira
10-11-2008, 11:15 PM
Hmmm, this thread could just as well be titled "Other than P-51..."

TinyTim, I see your logic, but the second sentince between the two you highlighted explans the two you did... "As per what I've read..." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'm just saying that if enough people are complaining about it, maybe there's at least some truth to it. Then again, I suppose on the internet multiplayer servers, there are many people flying late war aircraft against others in early war; something that never would have happened in the real world, and would, obviously, lead to such claims. (Me 262A-1a vs F4F-3 anyone?)

*shrugs* Time to go shoot down some Russki airplanes. Here I-16, I-16, I-16... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
10-11-2008, 11:38 PM
In all seriousness, over the entire conflict, considering availability, capability and versatility, there are only two contenders, the Spitfire and the 109. And I do think that overall, the Spitfire was the somewhat better fighter, in particular the IX had an advantage over the contemporary 109G.

On the other hand I can get two 109's for the price of one Spitfire, and the Spitfire wasn't quite twice as good. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
10-12-2008, 05:00 AM
FW's are better than 109's. Do-335 is better than FW. But wait! There's 262's!

Tempest is not better than Spit by late war?

Xiolablu3
10-12-2008, 07:04 AM
Definitely not at high altitude.

And not in a dogfight...

An accidental encounter, but a telling one none-the-less, Israeli Spitfire LF IX's vs RAF post war Tempests F6's...1948

'The Israelis banked right and made an attack. On the first pass, Schroeder knocked a Tempest out of the sky - the RAF airplane had gone out of control and spun in, the pilot, F/O David Crossley Tattersfield, probably killed in the initial attack. A furball ensued, in which the more nimble Spitfire LF 9s of the Israelis could outfight the heavier and faster RAF Tempests. Weizman hit one Tempest with a long burst and his companions damaged two others, but they, like the rest of the RAF aircraft there and below, quit the combat and outran the Israelis. Weizman's target landed safely at Al Arish.'


Obviously the RAf were not expecting to be attacked by Spitfires, nor at all. But still an interesting account.

DuxCorvan
10-12-2008, 08:46 AM
I think the best of all is the Modder Fokker. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Frenchie_334th
10-12-2008, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
The mother of all threads revived!

Nah, xiola, Me262 was only good for n00bish luftpussies who didn't know anything else but to hit and then run like a whining girl!

Ki-27 or Gladiator were the best WW2 fighter coz they outturn them all!! Air forces simply wanted to give their pilots a real challenge and didn't want to have superior planes as this would be unfair, that's why they progressively developed less and less maneouverable planes like P-47 and Me262.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Xiolablu3
10-12-2008, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
I think the best of all is the Modder Fokker. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

???? Confused....if those eyes are reffering to my post?

EDIT: Never mind, I guess I was being a bit thick when I thought you were referring to my post, lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HellToupee
10-12-2008, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Whether or not its included in 'manouverabilty' or not, I would still argue that turning tight is an extememly useful asset for a WW2 fighter aircraft, and I know that many very succesful Fighter pilots of WW2 thought the same.

Just one example is Adolf Gallnd when he asked for his 'Squadron of Spitfires', he explains why in his book..

'...the Spitfire, which although a little slower was much more manouverable. Our advantage was in flying straight ahead, diving and climbing, our turns were not tight enough'

This is why he asked Goering for a 'Squdron of SPitfires' when Goering asked him to close-escort the bombers. I could cite many many others who valued turn-rate, but I wont waste my time as many have probably read them themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdJyLx4aqI&feature=related

Not saying its the most important thing, but it IS extremely useful. It MUST be:- we are seeing thrust vectoring even on todays fast jets, even tho some argue turning tightly is not important on a fighter. Adding that much weight and complicated engineering for thrust vectoring is not done on a whim. Does it have any other use except aiding turn rate?

Well you have to remember galland flew 109s, the 109 didn't have a roll advantage over spitfires more the reverse.

A plane that can roll but not turn is not manoverable as is a plane that can turn but not roll like the Typhoon.

TinyTim
10-12-2008, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
A plane that can roll but not turn is not manoverable as is a plane that can turn but not roll like the Typhoon.

Yeah, a broad statement I generally agree on. However, it depends on what kind of advantage plane 1 has in roll over plane 2, and what kind of advantage in turn plane 2 has over plane 1. Excellent example of this is Fw190A3 vs SpitV - Fw190 having worse turn performance, but markedly superior roll. This IMO made it generally the more maneouverable aircraft of the two. Brits didn't clip the wings on the spit just for fun.

I think the definition of the term "maneouverability" is the core of the problem in this and similar threads.

PhantomKira
10-12-2008, 03:02 PM
JtD:


In all seriousness, over the entire conflict, considering availability, capability and versatility, there are only two contenders, the Spitfire and the 109.

What about the A6M? That was a full war production aircraft... I guess you could argue greatly reduced capability toward the end of the conflict? The P-38 was another full war production (well for the duration of US involvement, anyway); and it was far more versitile than the A6M.

Certainly if you take that view (over entire conflict), the P-51 crowd doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nothing like introducing an aircraft that is form built for a particular high profile task after the tide of battle has already been turned by other, less noted, types.

JtD
10-13-2008, 09:04 AM
The A6M was not a great combat plane, not even in its best versions. And, as you already said, from 1943 on it was outclassed by other planes.

The P-38 is indeed a different breed, but I wouldn't rank it as highly as a Spitfire for cost and complexity of production, maintenance and operation. It also wasn't adopted for carrier operations.

If you were to reduce the timeframe to the US participation, other types qualify as well, such as the Fw 190, the LaGG-3/La, Yak-1,-3,-7,-9 family aqnd possibly even the Typhoon. But I was thinking of 1939-1945, and then there are only the Spit and the 109 left.

Bremspropeller
10-13-2008, 09:12 AM
A plane that can roll but not turn is not manoverable as is a plane that can turn but not roll like the Typhoon.


A couple of RL pilots might wanna disagree.

Aaron_GT
10-13-2008, 02:48 PM
The P-38 is indeed a different breed, but I wouldn't rank it as highly as a Spitfire for cost and complexity of production, maintenance and operation.

The P-38 had good lift and could be used as a level bomber and pathfinder, but the it is crossing over into light bomber territory. Oddly it was never really adapted into an effective nightfighter.

The Spit does hold the record for the highest WW2 interception, though.