PDA

View Full Version : Best fighter??



Muddy17
10-24-2008, 11:50 PM
Ok you all got me,, Now I see alot of Yanks pullen on the Mustang, Brits with the Spit's, and the Germans,,, well they dont say much for some reason,
But which fighter of WW2 had the most kill's to it's airframe?
Not--"best pilot", not spacific theater but best fighter??

PS I dont have any opinion on this..my guess would be a 109 though, nothing on our side..

R_Target
10-24-2008, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
and the Germans,,, well they dont say much for some reason,

Stick around, they will.


But which fighter of WW2 had the most kill's to it's airframe?
Not--"best pilot", not spacific theater but best fighter??


Very likely the 109.

JtD
10-25-2008, 12:06 AM
I agree with R_Target. There were loads of 109's built over the course of the war and it scored plenty early on and on the Eastern front throughout the war.

HuninMunin
10-25-2008, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Muddy17:
and the Germans,,, well they dont say much for some reason,

Stick around, they will.


But which fighter of WW2 had the most kill's to it's airframe?
Not--"best pilot", not spacific theater but best fighter??


Very likely the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What, when?
There's just about a bloody hand full of us left http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Since Bewolf left it's just Brems, JTD and myself.
Pirsch counts as a Beutegermane.

And on topic:
Yes the 109 has the most kills on it's airframe.

na85
10-25-2008, 12:40 AM
Not because it was necessarily the best. That fact can be argued, and in fact many will say the best is the FW190.

The 109 was used since before WW2 (spanish civil war) all the way to 1945.

HayateAce
10-25-2008, 12:48 AM
You cannot have both.

Best fighter

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/other-fighter-planes/grumman-f8f-2p-bearcat-fighter.jpg

or plane with most kills on its airframe. The two are separate. I believe the 109 may have the most numerical kills on its airframe....including a whollllle bunch of early war russian junk fighters and cargo planes. A2A victory ratio will go to still a 3rd contender. Probably the Hellcat.

Muddy17
10-25-2008, 12:59 AM
All the books I read have German Experts with over 100 kills in 109's, and there is lots of them. I can't say Canada, US or UK or India or any of the other allies have an ace with anyware close to 100 kills.{I think a Russian is the highest scoring on allies} Let alone 200 or 300!!

Now does the plane make the man or vis/versa??
I would have to say the 109 was the best airframe of WW2 or there would be 100 kill aces in other places, don't ya think?

HayateAce
10-25-2008, 01:04 AM
In this case, neither man or machine accounted for the abnormal numbers of kills.

1 - German pilots were not sent home....ever. They fought on through to the bitter end or died trying. The fact that these experienced pilots were not sent back to fighter schools to train up and coming pilots would haunt the Luft till the end of the war.

2 - During the period of 1939 - 1943 german aircraft and pilot training was vastly superior to polish, czech and russian opponents. It was the heyday of the luft, with easy targets and plenty of them.

Once the germans faced real opposition in the British RAF, the United States Army Air Corps and a much improved VVS....well you know what happened then.

German kills on the western front were a fraction of what they had been in the east...the party was over. Here's a number for you. Eric Hartman was the leading german pilot with 350-odd kills claimed. Robert S. Johnson was sent home after scoring about 28 kills in his P47, during which he was on a record setting pace HIGHER than Hartman. Instead of hanging around rolling up a score over 5 years, he went home and trained future pilots, which proved to be one of the Allies war-winning strategies.

So why the abnormal kills?

1 - situation
2 - First generation pilot training and tour duration
3 - the aircraft these guys happened to use was a footnote, since the 109 was obsolete by 1940.

R_Target
10-25-2008, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
I believe the 109 may have the most numerical kills on its airframe....including a whollllle bunch of early war russian junk fighters and cargo planes.

Everybody got some easy meat at one point or another. Including P-51.


A2A victory ratio will go to still a 3rd contender. Probably the Hellcat.

The Brewster in Finnish service is higher than the Hellcat. But that doesn't factor in the many other lost Allied Buffaloes. If you count them as Finnish B-239 victories only, by the same logic the FM-2 in USN service has an even higher claim to loss ratio than the B-239.

R_Target
10-25-2008, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
All the books I read have German Experts with over 100 kills in 109's, and there is lots of them. I can't say Canada, US or UK or India or any of the other allies have an ace with anyware close to 100 kills.{I think a Russian is the highest scoring on allies} Let alone 200 or 300!!

Now does the plane make the man or vis/versa??
I would have to say the 109 was the best airframe of WW2 or there would be 100 kill aces in other places, don't ya think?

The high scores are a reflection of the length of the tour of duty. In the case of some Luftwaffe pilots, it was the whole war. It's not the only reason though, as they were undoubtedly skilled. If some of the German aces flew an Allied rotation they would still do well, but being taken out of action for staff or training work would bring the scoring to a premature end.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-25-2008, 01:50 AM
Indeed, Mr Target. Had the Luftwaffe flown virtually any contemporay monoplane fighter their scores would have been equivalent to those attained with the 109. (IMO).

And IBTK.

JtD
10-25-2008, 02:15 AM
The Finns didn't send their ace pilots back to flying school and did very well until the end.

You don't need aces for decent training. They help, but actually flying a plane helps a lot more. Which is another thing the German training lacked as the war went on. 10 hours flying just don't do it.

R_Target, the B-239 in Finnish service has a K/D of 26-1 according to wiki - claims vs. losses to all causes. The FM-2 is better than that?

F8F-Bearcat as the best fighter makes me lol. Wonder how the British had done in the BoB had they not had the Hurricane or Spitfire.

Badsight-
10-25-2008, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
F8F-Bearcat as the best fighter makes me lol. its not the fastest outright , but along with the best climb i bet it also had the best accelleration

what isnt knowen about the Bearcat is just how good or poor it was at sustained turning . it didnt have the same wing area as the hellcat so how much it suffered compared to the F6F we can only speculate

but the only thing against it is out-right top speed

other than that , its the meanest fighter to have to fly against

Muddy17
10-25-2008, 03:04 AM
Ok so if the duration of war thing made big Ace's in Germany, then why are there not Romanian, Italian,Bulgarian,Hungarian, Russian or more spacificly JAP aces with over 100 kills.

Would seem to me that they all had a mandate of end of war to go home, yet the Germans well,, kicked ***??
And Im really not on one side or the other.

JtD
10-25-2008, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:

other than that , its the meanest fighter to have to fly against

I think a F-22 would have little trouble against it. And the F-22 shot down as many WW2 opponents as the F8F did. In that light, I'd say a X-Wing or a TIE Interceptor would kick F8F butt, too.

R_Target
10-25-2008, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Finns didn't send their ace pilots back to flying school and did very well until the end.

They fought like hell!


You don't need aces for decent training. They help, but actually flying a plane helps a lot more. Which is another thing the German training lacked as the war went on. 10 hours flying just don't do it.

Good point. The USN appeared to believe in breaking up squadrons rotating out of combat to seed more new squadrons. They wouldn't have to necessarily be top guns, but their experience was deemed valuable in teaching new units. Others, like Thach and Flatley, moved into staff work and devised the tactics and doctrine that turned the tide and powered the Central Pacific offensive.


R_Target, the B-239 in Finnish service has a K/D of 26-1 according to wiki - claims vs. losses to all causes. The FM-2 is better than that?

It's like 34:1 or something. However, much FM-2 action was against recon snoopers and Special Attack squadrons, with correspondingly low A2A losses.


F8F-Bearcat as the best fighter makes me lol. Wonder how the British had done in the BoB had they not had the Hurricane or Spitfire.

Yeah, I know. Best for what? When? Where? There's no correct answer for best fighter as it's too dependent on context. I do believe that the F8F would have been best in class in it's intended Fleet Defense role. It wouldn't be so hot as a strike or escort plane, which is why they kept making Corsairs.

R_Target
10-25-2008, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
what isnt knowen about the Bearcat is just how good or poor it was at sustained turning . it didnt have the same wing area as the hellcat so how much it suffered compared to the F6F we can only speculate

Smaller wings, but wing-loading was very close to that of the F6F.

Aaron_GT
10-25-2008, 03:39 AM
its not the fastest outright , but along with the best climb i bet it also had the best accelleration

It's weak points were weak armament initially (4 50s which the USN complained about) and range. The latter was less of an issue as it was designed for fleet defence, in a sense a similar mission profile for which the Spitfire was designed a decade earlier as the warning distance from fleet radar was similar to Chain Home. The F8Fs initial armament would have been an improvement over Spitfire I or Hurricane I, although a few escort Hurricanes did get such an armament.

M_Gunz
10-25-2008, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
But which fighter of WW2 had the most kill's to it's airframe?

I look at that line in the context of your whole post and I look at the thread title..

now I'll ask you plainly just wtf do you think the one is directly related to the other?

If you really want to simplify so crassly then just go with the all-time #1, who won teh war.
I mean.. why half-step on stupid when you do the full march?

M_Gunz
10-25-2008, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Since Bewolf left it's just Brems, JTD and myself.
Pirsch counts as a Beutegermane.

You left out Kurfurst and he's like blue-blood royalty.

Muddy17
10-25-2008, 03:59 AM
Hi GUNZ , half stepen on stupid and "WTF" were not the response I was looking for but those are the ones that get Americans steriotyped, by the way I know how won the ****en war *** hole!!
It was the Russians NOT AMERICA!!

Muddy17
10-25-2008, 04:03 AM
Ok that was not the best thing to say and I am sorry. but I put forth what I wanted to speak about and if you want to reply like that then I reply thike this,

Kurfurst__
10-25-2008, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:

The high scores are a reflection of the length of the tour of duty. In the case of some Luftwaffe pilots, it was the whole war. It's not the only reason though, as they were undoubtedly skilled. If some of the German aces flew an Allied rotation they would still do well, but being taken out of action for staff or training work would bring the scoring to a premature end.

AFAIK only US pilots rotated. UK pilots did get off some leave on occasion, but Johhny Johnson for example fought through the whole war, Pierre Clostermann was only recalled off duty for a couple of months after Normandy, then they returned to service. "War leave" on the VVS? Not anymore than in the LW, ie. occassionally pulled off-duty, to visit family etc. And Hartmann did not start flying until late 1942 iirc.

Muddy17
10-25-2008, 05:07 AM
Right Hartman in 42 ?? All of the usless skycrap had already been shot away, and in 42 pleanty of pilot's with way more skill than Hartman,,rrrwell if the Germans had thought to train someone after DEC 7 [thats when the war started] then mabye the BOB would have been won,,erh,,ohya it was already over then..ok well then the battles....oh well never mind, P-47 or 51 won the war.. This is true

Muddy17
10-25-2008, 05:10 AM
No offence Kurfurst, Im on your side

Bremspropeller
10-25-2008, 05:55 AM
Kurfy ain't german.

There is no "best fighter" - it all depends on the mission.

tragentsmith
10-25-2008, 06:11 AM
Nice, Hayate Ace... Very intelligent.

Me109 obsolete in 1940.... That's a thing you have to tell to the France Armée de l'Air, the Belgian Armée de l'Air, the Nederlands Air Force, the RAF, the Canadians, the Czechs, the Poles.....

Man, I thought just the RAF and the French had a really equivalent opponent against the 109 in 1940, with the Spitfire and the Dewoitine 520.

Unfortunately just the RAF had to face them after France got defeated, but for an aircraft that allowed german to get aces in the hundreds, I think the 109 was a pretty good aircraft by 1940 up to 1943 where really better opponents came. And till 1945, it was still a very good aircraft. The problem at this period was not the aircraft, it was :

The general situation of germany fighting against USSR and the Allies on 3 fronts,
the lack of fuel,
the lack of training of new pilots.

Aaron_GT
10-25-2008, 06:18 AM
I'd also add issues with quality control from the second half of 1944.

Erkki_M
10-25-2008, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by tragentsmith:
Me109 obsolete in 1940.... That's a thing you have to tell to the France Armée de l'Air, the Belgian Armée de l'Air, the Nederlands Air Force, the RAF, the Canadians, the Czechs, the Poles.....

Also tell Hartmann, Marseille, Barkhorn, Juutilainen etc. and all the Spitfire/P51/P47 pilots that were shot down by it. Besides, Hartmann didnt fight for even 2 years.


The general situation of germany fighting against USSR and the Allies on 3 fronts,
the lack of fuel,
the lack of training of new pilots.

+ lots of old airframes and engines used, against numerical superiority.

P51 and Tempest werent as much better than 109(last year of the war) than 109s were better than Spits, Yaks, LaGGs, Las, MiGs, Hurricanes, P40s etc.(the list goes on) in 39-43. Not the best aircraft of the war but without a doubt the one that influenced the war the most. It also had a fairly good "killratio"(almost 2:1, I've heard), especially considering the catastrophe in the end of the war. Besides, its more stylish than (most) other WW2 aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
10-25-2008, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
Hi GUNZ , half stepen on stupid and "WTF" were not the response I was looking for but those are the ones that get Americans steriotyped, by the way I know how won the ****en war *** hole!!
It was the Russians NOT AMERICA!!

It was an Allied effort, be sure.

I am trying to point out that kill counts do not begin to equal performance of the planes at all.

Anyone could make a top 10 or top 20 factors in kill counts, performance is less than piloting,
doctrine, tactics, strategy and numbers.

You won't find best fighter by kill counts, you might as well go straight to the won teh war
argument because it is even *worse* in the same direction! BOTH are WRONG.

I hope you get the point now that I am not telling about countries or politics, I don't accept
the "won teh war" except as the mark of the most extreme ignorance which is why I say don't
just go half-way wrong when you can easily go all the way wrong like has been done here before.

Yeah, Russia Won Teh War. Same difference.

M_Gunz
10-25-2008, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
Right Hartman in 42 ?? All of the usless skycrap had already been shot away, and in 42 pleanty of pilot's with way more skill than Hartman,,rrrwell if the Germans had thought to train someone after DEC 7 [thats when the war started] then mabye the BOB would have been won,,erh,,ohya it was already over then..ok well then the battles....oh well never mind, P-47 or 51 won the war.. This is true

True also he had one kill at end of 42 wasn't it? He didn't start rolling up score till months
into 1943. A perfect example of Pilot Not The Plane.

josephs1959
10-25-2008, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
In this case, neither man or machine accounted for the abnormal numbers of kills.

"1 - German pilots were not sent home....ever. They fought on through to the bitter end or died trying. The fact that these experienced pilots were not sent back to fighter schools to train up and coming pilots would haunt the Luft till the end of the war."

I agree on the above point. The fact that experienced pilots were not sent home to train inexperienced pilots and thus improve the trainees in the end did cost the Luftwaffe dearly.

"2 - During the period of 1939 - 1943 german aircraft and pilot training was vastly superior to polish, czech and russian opponents. It was the heyday of the luft, with easy targets and plenty of them."

I agree again, The Luftwaffe entered WW II with more experience than it's oppenents which were essentially caught off guard in the opening stages of the war.

"Once the germans faced real opposition in the British RAF, the United States Army Air Corps and a much improved VVS....well you know what happened then."

Hmmm? "real opposition"? I think you belittle the efforts of some and exaggerate the efforts of others.

"German kills on the western front were a fraction of what they had been in the east..."

If my reference is correct (Luftwaffe fighter aircraft in profile)
Western front 14,000 allied aircraft lost by the war's end compared to the eastern front's 31,000. a hell of a fraction.


"the party was over. Here's a number for you. Eric Hartman was the leading german pilot with 350-odd kills claimed. Robert S. Johnson was sent home after scoring about 28 kills in his P47, during which he was on a record setting pace HIGHER than Hartman."

Simple numbers can be deceiving. What was the quality of the German pilots that Johnson shot down? The actual situation that he faced?

This argument that if the American pilots weren't sent home on rotation or whatever actually means nothing.

Hartmann (and many more other German aces, more than what the U.S. had and with more kill totals.)actually did survived the war after how many sorties flown? And how many times shot down? And made it back to fly again. And without the aid of the French underground.The Russians were notorious for killing on the spot German pilots.

People look at the simple numbers but forget to see what it took to achieve those numbers, Survival to the end.

It will never be known if the U.S. pilots would or could have survived the entire war and what would have been their total.Add to the above fact the duration of the U.S.' envolvement 3 years to Germany's 6. As simple as it is, compare it to a boxer in the ring for 3 rounds and facing a fresh opponent for another 3 rounds.
To assume that Johnson or any other U.S. pilot would have simply continued their pace of kills per sortie is redicoulous.
Fate would eventually intervene and they would have eventually come to have a bad day and not shot down any planes or in fact come across a lucky inexperienced German pilot who was at the right place and at the right time and be shot down themselves. Thus possibly ending their career.
It wasn't simply a matter of getting into their planes, flying around, pressing the trigger and returning home simply to do it all again.




"Instead of hanging around rolling up a score over 5 years,"

Gee you make his career seem so laid out and easy. I definitely have to disagree on that thoughtless lame point.


"he went home and trained future pilots, which proved to be one of the Allies war-winning strategies."

I agree. Which is the main reason he survived the war. Not his supposedly superior plane or training or skills

"So why the abnormal kills?

abnormal? maybe discrepancy in totals?"

"1 - situation"

Definitely


"2 - First generation pilot training and tour duration"

Definitley not.

"3 - the aircraft these guys happened to use was a footnote, since the 109 was obsolete by 1940. "

I'll give you that one.

M_Gunz
10-25-2008, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Kurfy ain't german.

There is no "best fighter" - it all depends on the mission.

In this game forum, if you are a fan who makes a side your own....

there are a lot of IL2 German fliers who are not German blood at all you know?

M_Gunz
10-25-2008, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
+ lots of old airframes and engines used, against numerical superiority.

Kurfurst has shown here before that before end of war they had more new planes than they could
use parked in many places. They didn't have fuel and pilots for them all.

A number of US aces were allowed to build up "kills" by shooting them on the ground even.
Does that make their planes better? No way it does!

K_Freddie
10-25-2008, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
the party was over. Here's a number for you. Eric Hartman was the leading german pilot with 350-odd kills claimed. Robert S. Johnson was sent home after scoring about 28 kills in his P47, during which he was on a record setting pace HIGHER than Hartman.

'The Blond Knight' is a good book to read. There's a lot about the pace and length of time on active duty here.

This pace thing is also dependent on tactics of the day. EG: It was fairly easy for the allies to pick off the fighters who's orders were to concentrate on the bombers and (stupidly) ignore the escorts. When this order changed the allied escorts had a serious fight on their hands, bar the numerical superiority. This the germans countered via putting most of their fighters into a single attack in a certain sector. Allied countermeasures were a lot more escorts, roving fighter groups ahead of the bombers, p47's straffing bases enroute etc...

On the eastern front, as mentioned many times by the Germans.. there were just so many targets, and never a shortage of them.
Also the 'on site' tactics used by pilots on either side, made the difference.

This would make a nice documentary though
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

josephs1959
10-25-2008, 01:47 PM
K_Freddie, you misquoted me that was actually a quote of HayateAce that I was responding to the points that he made.

M_Gunz
10-25-2008, 02:13 PM
It's hard to tell where he left off and you answered without comparing the two.

quotes aren't hard --
square left bracket QUOTE square right bracket to open a quote
square left bracket /QUOTE square right bracket to close

if you choose reply with quote then you'll see those in the message window

there's a button to the right of the smileys and left of the envelope up over the reply window
that makes pairs for you though it's not real easy to find because of the forum colors

cut and paste is by mouse; left click and drag to highlight, rt-click to get the menu,
rt-click to to paste, saves a lot of time typing

josephs1959
10-25-2008, 02:21 PM
Thank yee. You learn something every day. I'll never try that method again.

HuninMunin
10-25-2008, 02:49 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 Bremspropeller:
Kurfy ain't german.

There is no "best fighter" - it all depends on the mission.

In this game forum, if you are a fan who makes a side your own....

there are a lot of IL2 German fliers who are not German blood at all you know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and that's exactly what I resent.
R_Target was talking of Germans and I want to especially stress that I don't want to be put into the same league with some other characters.

R_Target
10-25-2008, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Yes and that's exactly what I resent.
R_Target was talking of Germans and I want to especially stress that I don't want to be put into the same league with some other characters.

I understand. Maybe I should have qualified my response a little bit. It was the "characters" that I was referring to.

R_Target
10-25-2008, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
And Hartmann did not start flying until late 1942 iirc.

That's why I wrote "some pilots" and not "all pilots".

In any case, without some sort of standard method, there's no valid comparison between pilots.

X32Wright
10-25-2008, 03:38 PM
The Emils were obsolete by late '40 BUT the Gustavs were definitely obsolete by late '42 and possibly the airframe itself. However the best testament to the 109 is that fact that it was fighting new airframes (P-47s and P-51's to Late Spits) up until the end of the war while it was being modified for various roles from ground attack to bomber interceptors (kanonenboots) to high alt fighters (G-6/AS and K-4 C3 to K-14). It still is the most mass- produced fighter plane ever at 35,000 with the 23k of that as Gustavs during the last 2 1/2 years of the war.

Finally I agree the best plane is the one that runs well and fits the best for particular pilot and his style of flying. The best ones online are those that can adapt in momments to being a TNB to a BNZer and back and forth depending on the relative energy states that he can read between his and the enemy's plane.

JSG72
10-25-2008, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
Ok you all got me,, Now I see alot of Yanks pullen on the Mustang, Brits with the Spit's, and the Germans,,, well they dont say much for some reason,
But which fighter of WW2 had the most kill's to it's airframe?
Not--"best pilot", not spacific theater but best fighter??

PS I dont have any opinion on this..my guess would be a 109 though, nothing on our side..

109F4! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif No ifs no buts...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gifNo links to G2 or most numerous G6.
When the "F4" (In period) flew it was "Happy Time".

Jaws2002
10-25-2008, 04:15 PM
I think the Germans missed the boat in 1943. They had really good planes up to that point, but when it came to choosing the planes to be mass produced they ended up with the G6 and A8 that were both worse performers then the predecessors. I think here is where they messed up the worst. The two planes that were built in the higherst numbers were both heavier, slower, worse climbers, worse turners then the planes before them.
I think they expected the jets to save them and didn't introduce in production newer more powerful egines. All they did was patch and improve the old ones (BMW-801, Jumo213, DB605 and DB603). None of this were big/powerful enough to make a difference and the jet engines took a rather long time to get going.
It was clear that they couldn't keep up with the numbers of the adversaries and only a solid performance advantage would have help them.

They ended up doing the heaviest of fighting (fall 1943-summer 1944) with poorer planes then the numerical superior adversaries....Game Over.

HuninMunin
10-25-2008, 04:24 PM
What makes you think that the A-8 is worse performing then the A-6?
In fact it's not.
Let me paraphrase : It should not.

Jaws2002
10-25-2008, 04:49 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/64fe0_FW190APerformance.jpg

Badsight-
10-25-2008, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I think a F-22 would have little trouble against it. And the F-22 shot down as many WW2 opponents as the F8F did. In that light, I'd say a X-Wing or a TIE Interceptor would kick F8F butt, too. well thats just silly . we are talking WW2 here

what the Bearcat couldnt go faster than , it could out-turn

what it couldnt out-turn , it could out-climb , out-accellerate & go faster

id take 10 bearcats over 10 Mk14 Spits , or 10 H Mustangs any day

armament ? theres nothing weak about 4 20mm high RoF cannon

M_Gunz
10-25-2008, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
what the Bearcat couldnt go faster than , it could out-turn

what it couldnt out-turn , it could out-climb , out-accellerate & go faster

Sounds like a 109 and some others.

Gumtree
10-25-2008, 06:20 PM
I am surprised that some of the posters here are claiming that the Emil was obsolete in late 1940.

Whilst the second generation Spitfire was starting to roll into the operational squadrons and IMO had an edge in performance over the Emil's, I would argue that the Emil was not at this stage obsolete, it just was not the best at the time. I feel that at this period of the war a well flown Emil could and did shoot down the best interceptors of the day.

IMHO planes like the Gladiator, Brewster's etc were obsolete, but to claim that the Bf-109E was obsolete is off the mark.

I would have though that obsolete would have a meaning of totally out performed, are we then saying that the 109 of this period was so badly out performed by the allies that it could not compete in air to air combat in late 1940?

Muddy17
10-25-2008, 08:37 PM
Wow good response, It is all a very good conversation but I was in the thought that the Bearcat did not make it into combat,, I could verywell be wrong but if it didnt- then it dont really count for WW2 like the Comet or whatever the first Brit jet was.

M_Gunz
10-25-2008, 09:47 PM
Maybe that was the Tigercat that didn't?
The big twin.

Badsight-
10-25-2008, 10:53 PM
it didnt make it into combat

but it was approved & put into service during WW2

pilots were put thru type training stateside & it was being shipped over to okinawa when the surrender was announced

by that stage the Grumman Tigercat had already made it to okinawa . both were to be readied for the invaision of japan

JtD
10-26-2008, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I think the Germans missed the boat in 1943. They had really good planes up to that point, but when it came to choosing the planes to be mass produced they ended up with the G6 and A8 that were both worse performers then the predecessors.

No, they weren't. The A-8 introduced the 1.65 ata variant of the BMW and was thus faster than the A-6 at all altitudes where the increased boost was effective. It also carried increased armament, a better radio and increased fuel. It also was more versatile than the earlier models.

Being more versatile is also the main difference between the G-6 and the G-2. The differences in flight performance were actually small.

JtD
10-26-2008, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:

id take 10 bearcats over 10 Mk14 Spits , or 10 H Mustangs any day

Yeah, and I'd take a Hurricane MkII and wipe your air force from the sky before your Bearcat even gets onto the drawing boards.

That's plain silly.

Badsight-
10-26-2008, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
That's plain silly. what on earth are you on

its like your discussing with yourself based on your own rules

its ok that the best plane of WW2 was American you know

JtD
10-26-2008, 01:15 AM
LOL, now it's not only "best fighter" but "best plane". And nationalistic BS. It's not surprising they always come together.

I've stated my point of view in another topic recently. If you consider capability and availability there are only two contenders for the title "best fighter" of WW2, the Spitfire and the 109. No other fighter was available early in the war and competitive right through to the end.

Now if you insist that the F8F was the best fighter, feel free. But don't expect me to agree with that silliness.

Whirlin_merlin
10-26-2008, 01:50 AM
The Bearcat is;

One of the greatest aircraft to watch at an air show. (IT just goes up!).
One of the aircraft that demonstrates the peak of what could be done with a piston engine and 40s materials.
Cool as freaking cucumber.
Irrelevent to the fighting of WWII.


But this is just a silly thread anyway.
I dunno what the best fighter is but I know the worst is the one you don't have so cant't use.

Aaron_GT
10-26-2008, 03:10 AM
id take 10 bearcats over 10 Mk14 Spits , or 10 H Mustangs any day

The contemporary Spitfire would really be the 21.

edited for typo

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-26-2008, 03:14 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Or a Whirlwind Mk VII if those meddling conpiracists and their pesky dog hadn't got their way... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Aaron_GT
10-26-2008, 03:23 AM
what the Bearcat couldnt go faster than , it could out-turn

The F8F was an excellent plane, but the Spitfire XIV and 21 both had higher maximum speeds (although only at high altitude I would expect, espeially down low). What was the F8F's turn compared to the Spitfire? (Genuine question!) The climb rate of the F8F and the Spitfire XIV was officially a dead heat, but I am not sure about the 21. Where it really wins over the Spitfire is in having twice the range and being navalised. There wasn't a navalised XIV to give a true comparison.

Jaws2002
10-26-2008, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I think the Germans missed the boat in 1943. They had really good planes up to that point, but when it came to choosing the planes to be mass produced they ended up with the G6 and A8 that were both worse performers then the predecessors.

No, they weren't. The A-8 introduced the 1.65 ata variant of the BMW and was thus faster than the A-6 at all altitudes where the increased boost was effective. It also carried increased armament, a better radio and increased fuel. It also was more versatile than the earlier models.

Being more versatile is also the main difference between the G-6 and the G-2. The differences in flight performance were actually small. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 1.62ata boost came in later. The A8 started with 1.42 then gradually went up to 1.58 and later to 1.65.

While the power increased with A8 the top speed didn't(unless we talk about specialized high/low altitude planes). The new boost system increased the pressure inside the cowling and that created a lot more drag. That's one of the main reasons for A8 not going much faster.

Check A8 compared with the A5 for example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/190-2-1024.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/12378_fw190_A5_speed_122_315lo.jpg


While the A8 was better then A6 for lufwaffe's job, it didn't bring the needed performance increase to deal with the late war allied fighters.
The US had huge speed advantage up high, and down low the situation wasn't that much better, with late typhoons, tempests, and the new Russian pocket rockets buzzing around.

Things got a bit better with the long nose FW's and G10/k4 but this was too late to make a difference.
Waiting on the jet engines to save the day they canceled the development of DB-802 and Jumo-222, that if finished, could have made a difference in 1944 with their 2500-2800HP and much better high alt superchargers.

Bremspropeller
10-26-2008, 10:48 AM
The A-8s gave their opponents quite a headache, considered their worth for some ppl on these boards.

III./JG 54 claimed more than 100 victories on the invasion front. Not bad for a unit flying "obsolete" aircraft against the numerical odds.

JG 54 units in Kurland continued to fly A-8s till the last day of the war and did quite well against the russian "pocket rockets".

The 190 was a very modern and capable airframe.
It was never really eclipsed by other fighters.

Contrary to popular beleif, an A-8 COULD hold it's own against a P-51 up to about 20,000ft.

JtD
10-26-2008, 11:02 AM
From your charts, Jaws:

Speed of A-5 / A-8
@ 5500m: 640 / 652
@ 3000m: 590 / 593
@ 0500m: 577 / 576

Note than an A-6 would have been another 4-5 km/h slower than the A-5. Eventually, at altitudes below 6000m, the A-8 was speedwise at least on par with the earlier models, while acceleration was improved.

The 1.58/1.65 ata refers to added boost for the different charger stages, I think 1.58 low and 1.65 high.

You claimed the Germans chose the worst models for mass production, which is wrong. They chose the best models they had at the time, unless you want a plane to turn with Spitfires instead of one to destroy enemy forces.

You are right in that the performance of the German planes in a Il-2-dogfight-server role did not improve significantly over a period of almost 2 years, and mass production only started after these two years.

Aaron_GT
10-26-2008, 11:02 AM
Nice charts, jaws2002. Could you add them to the charts sticky thread?

HuninMunin
10-26-2008, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/64fe0_FW190APerformance.jpg

Answered on the darkside via PM.

Buzzsaw-
10-26-2008, 02:39 PM
Salute

Fighter pilot kill totals are a function of a number of things:

1) Training of the pilot
2) Training of the opposing pilots
3) Tactics of the friendly airforce
4) Tactics of the enemy airforce
5) Technical superiority/inferiority of their aircraft
6) Frequency of combat/Opportunity to gain a victory

The high scores of the German Aces over the East Front came from the combination of advantages in all these.

1) All of the German Aces came out of the early war, (39-42) German training schemes, which were the best of any airforce of the time.

2) With the exception of a few pre-war Soviet pilots who had built up a lot of flying hours in peacetime, Soviet pilots had most of their training in non-combat aircraft, very low hours overall, almost none in combat aircraft, and were expected to 'learn on the job' in the combat aircraft when they arrived at their Squadron. This is a recipe for high attrition.

3) German tactics emphasized climbing to higher altitude, and using the 'bounce' in their attacks, ie. speed and surprise. They had excellent radio communication, and Radar control services which could direct them to enemy aircraft groupings.

4) Soviet tactics emphasized flying at low altitude, even fighters were expected to stay close to their ground attack aircraft, thus they gave up entirely the upper airspace, ceding the initiative to the Germans, and allowing them the opportunity to exercise their tactical doctrine to the maximum. The Germans almost always had the 'bounce'. There were no Soviet radar or ground control to speak of, except in defence of the major cities, and radios in individual aircraft were limited to the Squadron leader until nearly half way through the war.

5) German aircraft had a technical superiority in both speed and climb over Soviet aircraft, almost the entirety of the war. This was especially the case at higher altitudes. The German tactics were a perfect complement to this technical superiority.

6) Because of the numerical superiority of the Soviet airforce, a German fighter pilot could expect the opportunity to encounter and engage in combat on average, every 2nd sortie. With the advantages listed in 1-5, it meant that his chances for gaining a victory were very high.

In effect, the Germans had a almost unlimited number of inferior performance target aircraft, flying at altitudes where they were not an offensive threat, piloted by poorly trained pilots.

It was not surprising that high scores were registered.

Comments re. the West front later.

HayateAce
10-26-2008, 02:49 PM
Nominate for sticky post.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Stafroty
10-26-2008, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
All the books I read have German Experts with over 100 kills in 109's, and there is lots of them. I can't say Canada, US or UK or India or any of the other allies have an ace with anyware close to 100 kills.{I think a Russian is the highest scoring on allies} Let alone 200 or 300!!

Now does the plane make the man or vis/versa??
I would have to say the 109 was the best airframe of WW2 or there would be 100 kill aces in other places, don't ya think?

one reason for low kill ratio on allies comes from fact that there wasnt so many targets to shoot down while there was many in numbers to find the axis planes.

for sure it had impact on those ratios, but in same way of lookin, axis was outnumbered and yet was able to get so high score, also tells something.

Bremspropeller
10-26-2008, 03:19 PM
1) All of the German Aces came out of the early war, (39-42) German training schemes, which were the best of any airforce of the time.


"Aces" as your typical lame west-allied "5 victories"-aces? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Poor post, full of generalization and wrong.

Badsight-
10-26-2008, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
If you consider capability and availability . well that is stupid

the Hawker Hurricane , the Grumman F8F

both are WW2 aircraft . one of them is completely dominant .

the other is the Mk1 Hurricane

its ok to admit that the best fighter of WW2 was made in america , its not a crime & your not less of a person if you do so

Badsight-
10-26-2008, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The climb rate of the F8F and the Spitfire XIV was officially a dead heat, but I am not sure about the 21.
only if the Mk14 could climb over 6000 ft per minute

the Bearcat was faster at climbing than the 1.98 ATA K4 109

it was the fastest climbing piston/prop fighter ever

the fastest outright fighter was the H Mustang . another american WW2 plane . but its best climb rate was a rubbish 3500-ish ft/minute

Badsight-
10-26-2008, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In effect, the Germans had a almost unlimited number of inferior performance target aircraft, flying at altitudes where they were not an offensive threat, piloted by poorly trained pilots. explaining away HJM isnt so easy

Bremspropeller
10-26-2008, 04:53 PM
I'd say the Brits had the best would-have-been-WW2 piston fighter - the Tempest II.

Aaron_GT
10-26-2008, 05:18 PM
A few were delivered to India before the end of WW2 but didn't become operational before it ended.

Jaws2002
10-26-2008, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:

Answered on the darkside via PM.

I did not find any new PM here or on the dark side. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

HuninMunin
10-26-2008, 06:53 PM
But you are the Jaws over there as well, right?

Jaws2002
10-26-2008, 07:06 PM
Yep. Jaws2002.

Same old toothless shark. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

HuninMunin
10-26-2008, 07:43 PM
Hmm.
Either some other lucky user rejoices in a discussion he or she had no idea of or it didn't make it through.
Will resend in the next days.

M_Gunz
10-26-2008, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1) All of the German Aces came out of the early war, (39-42) German training schemes, which were the best of any airforce of the time.


"Aces" as your typical lame west-allied "5 victories"-aces? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Poor post, full of generalization and wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 also add some very misleading statements as well.
Russians didn't get back on their feet and run till mid-war and then it was too bad for Germany!
First they had to move most all of the industries far to east then get all that restarted, no
small task. They also had to overcome Stalin's pre-war purge, as devastating as Hitler's attack!

Aaron_GT
10-27-2008, 02:36 AM
only if the Mk14 could climb over 6000 ft per minute

As far as I can tell it is the wartime F8F-1 had 4570 ft/min ROC, max speed 421 mph, (which is what I compared against the wartime Spitfire XIV and 21), but it is the post war F8F-2 (more powerful engine) that could manage 6300 ft/min and 455 mph max speed.

So if you are looking at wartime production then the XIV could outclimb the F8F-1, but you could argue that F8F-1 wasn't representative of what the type was ultimately capable.

Xiolablu3
10-27-2008, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1) All of the German Aces came out of the early war, (39-42) German training schemes, which were the best of any airforce of the time.


"Aces" as your typical lame west-allied "5 victories"-aces? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Poor post, full of generalization and wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ALL airforces rate 5 kills as an 'Ace'. 'Lame Allies' and even 'lamer Nazi Luftwaffe' too. too..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
10-27-2008, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb Wed January 25 2006 07:06:-

"...look at it this way. (Notwithstanding the limited tours of operational duty). If your average Lufty fighter jock was 23 years old in 1943, he would have been indocrinated from the age of 13 into the warlike ways, ambitions and expectations of a very nasty regime indeed. Compare this to the wholesome go-out-and-play-saturday-morning-pictures-jumpers-for-goalposts upbringing of your average British youth and it's little wonder that these high German figures exist. Also consider that the British positively discouraged the publicity of individual fighter pilots; press reports and radio interviews yes, but naming the pilot seemed to be the exception rather than the rule. Not letting the side down was enough for these men; it wasn't a sport for them, they wanted - on the whole - to get the job done and return to normal life. Your Lufty, on the other hand, seemed to thrive on getting his picture on the cover of whatever magazine was in town. Portrait postcards were big sellers too. To this day there is a thriving market for Lufty ace memorabilia for private collectors - sustainable only by the sheer volume of artefacts produced at the time."

TinyTim
10-27-2008, 03:49 AM
Many P-51 escort pilots flew 50 missions over Germany and didn't even see a German plane.

HayateAce
10-27-2008, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:



"Aces" as your typical lame west-allied "5 victories"-aces? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


60+ years and counting and that chip is getting bigger each day? Wounds are supposed to get better with time ya know.

Badsight-
10-27-2008, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
As far as I can tell it is the wartime F8F-1 had 4570 ft/min ROC, max speed 421 mph, (which is what I compared against the wartime Spitfire XIV and 21), but it is the post war F8F-2 (more powerful engine) that could manage 6300 ft/min and 455 mph max speed.

So if you are looking at wartime production then the XIV could outclimb the F8F-1, but you could argue that F8F-1 wasn't representative of what the type was ultimately capable. Negatory

i dunno where the 4570 climb rate figure comes from , cruise power setting ?

from my Bearcat text file . originally posted here years back :

" "Operation Pogo Stick" conducted as a demonstration at the Cleveland Air Race, November 22, 1946. An F8F-1 piloted by Comdr. Bill Leonard set a new time to climb record, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 97.8 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. Unfortunately, he didn't get to keep the record very long. Lieut. Comdr. Butch Davenport came along about 15 minutes later and set the next new record of 94 seconds, also in an F8F-1 in a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 kt head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 kts. These wind speeds helped to reduce the time on the ground. Both were assigned to TACTEST at the time; Cdr Leonard was TACTEST projects officer. Lt Cdr Davenport was the F8F project officer. The F8F's used were the standard Navy aircraft, armed, with ammunition. The planes were modified, however, to allow full emergency military power with the landing gear down, something you couldn't do in a stock airplane due to safety locks.

The rapid climb to altitude was the F8F's bread and butter. The plane was to have been the solution to the kamikaze problem ... rapid climb capability, firepower, speed, and more (better) maneuverability than the F6F or F4U.

I've heard folks say that that Leonard and Davenport pretty well trashed the engines on their planes, but that is not so. This was not a spur of the moment stunt ". . . Hey, let's go up to Cleveland . . . I hear they're having an Air Race today . . . Maybe we can set a record of some kind". Actually they'd been practicing back at Patuxent with the same planes used in Cleveland, doing (without checking logs) three or four practice runs each. After the demonstration they flew those same planes back to TACTEST.

Regards,

Rich Leonard
(not a coincidence) "

thats over 6,300 ft/min

the only advantage in this test over a normal service -1 Bearcat was max power/throttle setting from go . 50% fuel - no ammo

the -2 Bearcat only added an extra 150 Hp (or 100 hp - its late here & i dunno which HD has the file)

do you remember "SkyChimp" ?

IIRC , the Bearcat pilot was either a family freind , or a relation to him

http://xs432.xs.to/xs432/08441/one966.jpg

edit : the plane on the left is the Ryan "Fireball" . who the hell would want to fly a "Fireball" ?!?!?!

double edit : the fastest speed ive seen attributed to the Bearcat is 427 mph . it was seriously out-classed in speed . but my guess would be that it got to 400 mph faster than most

M_Gunz
10-27-2008, 06:46 AM
Oh goody, it's time to pick the cherries.

Where is good ole JL-165?

BTW, WWI GAS took ten kills to become an Ace. When did that change?

Kocur_
10-27-2008, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
from my Bearcat text file . originally posted here years back :

" "Operation Pogo Stick" conducted as a demonstration at the Cleveland Air Race, November 22, 1946. (...) The F8F's used were the standard Navy aircraft, armed, with ammunition. "

thats over 6,300 ft/min

the only advantage in this test over a normal service -1 Bearcat was max power/throttle setting from go . 50% fuel - no ammo

So which: with or without ammo? And this incoherence makes me ask about source of information on fuel level. I would think that since they went there with setting a record in mind they had fuel enough to just reach the aimed alt and land safely - anyway as little as possible.
I wonder also how much of help was that wind in shortening not only take off run but also climb time.
Anyway I dont think that record time result had much to do condition-wise with "charts" we usually use for comparisons. I mean loadout and weather - no things like recalculating to standard atmosphere.

Xiolablu3
10-27-2008, 08:01 AM
The Bearcat should be put up with contemporaries like the Me262, Sea Fury and De Havilland Vampire, He162, Spiteful (484mph), P80, Hell even the Meteor F4 of late 1945 had a top speed of almost 600mph...

Sure its a very good aircraft vs early/mid WW2 types, but its not an incredible performer when put up against its post-war contemporaries. Its even close to some wartime types which were entering service in early '44.

Bremspropeller
10-27-2008, 08:11 AM
ALL airforces rate 5 kills as an 'Ace'

Wrong.

5 kills didn't even get you a bunch of flowers in the Lw - let alone the title *Ace*.
There were no *Aces* in the Lw.

It took you more than just 5 kills in order to be recognized in the Lw.

The "5 kills = Ace"-stuff was made up by western-allied propaganda.
What's the pont of being an "Ace" at five kills anyway?
You can be a sh1tty pilot and have 5 kills, whereas the best pilot out of class doesn't have any kills at all.

The whole Ace-talk is a bunch of cr@p anyway.
Let alone terms like "double ace" or "tripple ace" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


60+ years and counting and that chip is getting bigger each day? Wounds are supposed to get better with time ya know.

I was expecting anything like that from you - forum-troll and biggest believer in Superman and his friend Pony-Man.


BTW:
Did the Soviets have "Aces"? No.
Did the Italinas have "Aces"? No.
Did the Japanese have "Aces"? No.
Did the Hungarians have "Aces"? No.
Did the Spanirads have "Aces"? No.
Did the Romanians have "Aces"? No.

Can't help myself - looks pretty much like a weserten-allied thing to me.
That excludes the French that were not flying among RAF or USAAF.

M_Gunz
10-27-2008, 08:27 AM
LW had "Experten" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif not baby stuff like "Aces" which they 'outgrew' after 1918.

Bremspropeller
10-27-2008, 08:38 AM
Experte was not an official term.

WOLFMondo
10-27-2008, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Bearcat should be put up with contemporaries like the Me262, Sea Fury and De Havilland Vampire, He162, Spiteful (484mph), P80, Hell even the Meteor F4 of late 1945 had a top speed of almost 600mph...

Sure its a very good aircraft vs early/mid WW2 types, but its not an incredible performer when put up against its post-war contemporaries. Its even close to some wartime types which were entering service in early '44.

Agreed, the Bearcat had incredible performance but put next to the DH Hornet and Seafury and its not the be all and end all of prop fighter performance. Its got the ROC but I wouldn't want to race a factory fresh Bearcat against a factory fresh Hornet or Seafury.

Xiolablu3
10-27-2008, 09:14 AM
The German Empire instituted the practice of awarding the Pour le Mérite ("Der blaue Max"/"The blue Max"), its highest award for gallantry, initially to aviators who had destroyed eight Allied aircraft.[1] The Germans did not use the term 'ace' but referred to German pilots who had achieved 10 kills as überkanonen and publicised their names and scores, for the benefit of civilian morale.


Basically the same as an 'Ace' in anything but the exact word....


Boasting about scores was frowned upon in the West, whereas it was encouraged in the Luftwaffe.

Bremspropeller
10-27-2008, 09:28 AM
The German Empire instituted the practice of awarding the Pour le Mérite ("Der blaue Max"/"The blue Max"), its highest award for gallantry, initially to aviators who had destroyed eight Allied aircraft.[1] The Germans did not use the term 'ace' but referred to German pilots who had achieved 10 kills as überkanonen and publicised their names and scores, for the benefit of civilian morale.


We're talking about the Luftwaffe, aren't we?
Show me a source on that "überkanone"-stuff.


Basically the same as an 'Ace' in anything but the exact word....

Again - WW1, not WW2.


Boasting about scores was frowned upon in the West, whereas it was encouraged in the Luftwaffe.

Generalization is the mother of all conversational feck-ups.

R_Target
10-27-2008, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Sure its a very good aircraft vs early/mid WW2 types, but its not an incredible performer when put up against its post-war contemporaries. Its even close to some wartime types which were entering service in early '44.

It's also close to the Sea Fury, which entered service in 1947, with not much more performance than 1944 F4U-4.

R_Target
10-27-2008, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Agreed, the Bearcat had incredible performance but put next to the DH Hornet and Seafury and its not the be all and end all of prop fighter performance. Its got the ROC but I wouldn't want to race a factory fresh Bearcat against a factory fresh Hornet or Seafury.

Sea Fury has more top end speed, but it's also 2000lbs heavier for the same power. Unless it's a straight line race, F8F has the advantage.

Aaron_GT
10-27-2008, 01:57 PM
i dunno where the 4570 climb rate figure comes from

This is the most often quoted figure for the F8F-1, presumably standard engine boosts, etc, under controlled conditions. Although I haven't seen a chart for it. The record breaking F8F was a production machine but it is not clear to what extent it was tweaked and whether it can be considered still representative of service types, and also whether the ROC was controlled for atmospherics.

[As a side note two +25 Spifire tests in 1943 and 1944 with the same airframe and engine gave ROCs of which one was 12% higher than the other, and even the low one was probably 10% higher than service machines).

6300 ft/min, though, is a fantastic achievement and hats off to the team that did it. I can't fault them.

But the real discussion should be about ROCs seen in service. Granted in some instances US aircraft in the game should get some extra boosts at dates before the official tests were done as there was all sorts of unauthorised tweaking going on, and it would be nice to see a +25 Mustang IV but I expect that short of things from 'another place' we'll be waiting on SoW for that in the fullness of time.

But, if someone shows a test chart with greater than 4570 ft/min I'll happily change my mind on the F8F, it's just I haven't seen anything like that yet so until then I'm going on consensus.

Woke_Up_Dead
10-27-2008, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
2 - During the period of 1939 - 1943 german aircraft and pilot training was vastly superior to polish, czech and russian opponents. It was the heyday of the luft, with easy targets and plenty of them.


I don't know about the "vastly superior" pilot training part. The Poles were extremely well trained, some of the training routines they had to perform on the P-11 were pretty amazing. It's this training that allowed them to maintain a roughly 1:1 kill/loss ratio in September 1939 against the Luftwaffe despite flying much older and inferior planes. Their great training again showed itself in the Battle of Britain where the top-scoring squadron (during the most intense BoB period of late summer and early fall of 1940 anyway) was Polish (#303), and the top allied aces of that period were Poles from that squadron except for the #1 ace, who was a Czech who also flew for the 303.

Also, there weren't that many airborne targets for the Germans over Poland to begin with; the PAF numbered 400 planes total, some were destroyed on the ground, some were lost to friendly fire, some were lost to AA, some managed to escape to Romania, all together the Luftwaffe probably only scored about 150-200 kills in that campaign. The Germans never fought the Czech airforce.

Finally, very early in the war the Germans did not have huge numbes of extremely well-trained pilots for the simple reason that they only had a few years since they started to openly break the Versailles treaty and build their armed forces. Sure, they managed to sneak in some military training into civilian flying clubs before that; and sure, a small hadnful of pilots flew in the Spanish Civil War, but the bulk of the recruits were trained by an air force that really started to exist only in the mid-thirties. The Poles and the western allies on the other hand were training pilots for the purpose of war since the end of WWI.

Your argument begins to be true only in the summer of 1941 where they faced huge masses of poorly trained Soviet pilots who were flying obsolete machines. By that time the Germans had lots of training based on experience over Poland, Norway, France, Britain, and the Mediterranean theatres.

JtD
10-27-2008, 02:44 PM
It's interesting to note that the early German fighter pilots received training in the Soviet Union, to the similar standards as the Soviet airmen.

R_Target
10-27-2008, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
This is the most often quoted figure for the F8F-1, presumably standard engine boosts, etc, under controlled conditions. Although I haven't seen a chart for it. The record breaking F8F was a production machine but it is not clear to what extent it was tweaked and whether it can be considered still representative of service types, and also whether the ROC was controlled for atmospherics.

The F8F used in "Operation Pogo Stick" was modified to permit WEP with the landing gear extended, as the stopwatch was started upon release of the brakes. Also, as already noted, 50% fuel and no ammunition. That right there would mean that it's not representative of a service type. As far as what the difference would be between the BuAer 4570 figure and the 6000+ figure on a fully armed and fueled service type in capable hands is probably not worth debating without more evidence. I believe "Standard Aircraft Characteristics" is still available at history.navy.mil., and I have it here somewhere also.

Aaron_GT
10-27-2008, 04:19 PM
A chart would be great. The figure might be in the pilot's notes, and for the price they are tempting, although shipping might be expensive.

At Duxford the F8F sounded magnificent.

Badsight-
10-27-2008, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
But, if someone shows a test chart with greater than 4570 ft/min I'll happily change my mind on the F8F, it's just I haven't seen anything like that yet so until then I'm going on consensus.
that figure is so low , that it has to be cruise setting climb rate

the difference in manifold pressure of "military power" compared to the normal allowable sustained maximum of the Bearcats r2800 isnt something that i know

but this test was done with a completely standard service example of the Bearcat . that much the son of the pilot is certian of

the allowable duration of military power on the supercharged R2800 is another thing im not awear of

but that test shows the max RoC the service F8F-1 could do

not even the 1.98ATA K4 could match it . & we know how limited that thing was at max MP

the only comparable fighter i see at maintaing air superiority is the Spit Mk14 . when it comes to energy fighting , RoC is the most important quality

as for top speed , its HP & CoD that help the most . so although the Bearcat probably had great initial accelleration , my bet is that the last 40 Mp/H grew slowly . & i doubt it got over 430 mph , the -2 gained weight along with Hp


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Spiteful (484mph). the Spiteful was put into service ?

the H Mustang was the fastest ever piston/prop fighter . it was a WW2 plane as was the Bearcat

with the P-47 N , the H Mustang , the -4 F4U & the F8F - you have the most dominant set of WW2 strike piston/props

the only addition i would make is the IL-10

Buzzsaw-
10-27-2008, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
LW had "Experten" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif not baby stuff like "Aces" which they 'outgrew' after 1918.

Hmmm....

Looks pretty much the same to me whether its WWI or WWII.

Crank up the publicity machine and print up the postcards for the adoring public.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Manfred_von_Richthofen.jpeg

Von Richtofen propaganda for the home front:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk8B4PyRgpk&feature=related


Only difference was the volumn, much more publicity in WWII.

http://i16.ebayimg.com/05/i/001/11/5a/ba58_1.JPG

Get the cameras rolling! Don't forget to include our beloved Fuhrer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASpqx0t0rio

Fact is, it was an growth propaganda industry for the Nazis even more than the Imperial General Staff.

Kocur_
10-28-2008, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
As far as I can tell it is the wartime F8F-1 had 4570 ft/min ROC (...) Negatory

i dunno where the 4570 climb rate figure comes from , cruise power setting ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, apparently not:

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z237/Kotsoor/F8F_1_a.jpg

(Don't ask me for original source, just found it on my HDD).

As we can see regular F8F-1 in full combat gear and toiletries would get to 10 kft in 2,5 minutes using combat power, which is about a minute longer than the Pogostick result and is equal to average ROC of 4000 ft/min.
50 % fuel less would be about 550 lbs/250 kg less of 9334l lbs/4238 kg regular take off weight (0,5 x 183 x 3,785 x 0,73 for kg). 1200 rds with belts would be worth of about 360 lbs/160 kg. So no ammo and half a fuel load would make F8F-1 lighter by 910 lbs/410 kg, which means 8424 lbs / 3824 kg.
But Rich Leonard whom Badsight quoted says they had ammunition onboard and says nothing about fuel.

My guess would be the Pogostick Bearcats had less fuel than 50 % and the record had very much to do with their engines tweaking. I mean take a look how quickly the power drops. It's superb circa 2400 hp for SL and 1000 ft but medicore ca 1800 hp at 10.000 ft. Also Rich Leonard mentiones "full emergency military power". Is it equal to "Combat" rating on the chart or is it more?

All in all apparently stock summer 1945 F8F-1 with combat load was not capable of what the chart says and that is very much less than average ca 6300 ft/min for 10.000 ft. Not so stellar numbers for time to climb and ROC seem to me to be results of poor altitude performace of the engine, losing power so quickly to say 1943/44-ish level at about 10.000 ft and higher. I mean its 1790 hp at 9.500 ft, while R-2800-8W of F4U-1D developed 2135 kp at 12.400 ft. It seems that engine for F8F-1 was chosen for really low alt performance.

M_Gunz
10-28-2008, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
LW had "Experten" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif not baby stuff like "Aces" which they 'outgrew' after 1918.

Hmmm....

Looks pretty much the same to me whether its WWI or WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No duh. Look up the word sarcasm some time.


Fact is, it was an growth propaganda industry for the Nazis even more than the Imperial General Staff.

Here's some more of that.
Of course the Germans were the only ones to play that game, Mr. Righteous.
It was never done in the US at all, not even to sell War Bonds.

I might as well be reading Kurfurst on the British....

R_Target
10-28-2008, 06:23 AM
Badsight's text file may have been garbled in transmission, but Rich Leonard actually posted that the F8F had no ammunition and 50% fuel, and again that the only modification was to overide the safety lock that does not permit ADI with landing gear extended.

WOLFMondo
10-28-2008, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:

with the P-47 N , the H Mustang , the -4 F4U & the F8F - you have the most dominant set of WW2 strike piston/props

the only addition i would make is the IL-10

You miss of several aircraft that can equal there performance which either served in WW2 or were about to come into active service when it ended i.e. the Spit XIV, Spit Mk 22 & 24, Tempest V, II and VI.

WOLFMondo
10-28-2008, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Agreed, the Bearcat had incredible performance but put next to the DH Hornet and Seafury and its not the be all and end all of prop fighter performance. Its got the ROC but I wouldn't want to race a factory fresh Bearcat against a factory fresh Hornet or Seafury.

Sea Fury has more top end speed, but it's also 2000lbs heavier for the same power. Unless it's a straight line race, F8F has the advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK the only guy to who flew both the Seafury and Bearcat and make a statement said they were both 'best of the best' for different reasons. His comments on the seahornet I'd say also put it in contention for 'best'.

R_Target
10-28-2008, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Agreed, the Bearcat had incredible performance but put next to the DH Hornet and Seafury and its not the be all and end all of prop fighter performance. Its got the ROC but I wouldn't want to race a factory fresh Bearcat against a factory fresh Hornet or Seafury.

Sea Fury has more top end speed, but it's also 2000lbs heavier for the same power. Unless it's a straight line race, F8F has the advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK the only guy to who flew both the Seafury and Bearcat and make a statement said they were both 'best of the best' for different reasons. His comments on the seahornet I'd say also put it in contention for 'best'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Capt. Brown?

WOLFMondo
10-29-2008, 04:04 AM
Yup.