Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Wow guys... I had no idea some german aces had over 300 kills to their credit! MAn no wonder WW2 is such a popular subject for dogfighting! I keep hearing about the Bunker Hill corsairs and avengers as well.

Any interesting P-47 thunderbolt ace stories? Mustangs?

btw for those interested... the Forces of valor black knight diecast F-14A just arrived@badcataviation.

http://badcataviation.com/usftomcatbkn.html

IF anyone knows of existing or new galleries with it please link! And if anyone has or intends to buy it, let us know what you think about it!

[Lynx7725]

IIRC, there are only a handful of 300+ kills aces. And truth to be told, it's hard to believe.

IIRC -- I'm working off very hazy memories here -- some of them had been around since the Kondor Legion in Spain, and had served on the Eastern Front (where the Russkies had no shortage of planes to let the Germans shoot down...), but even adjusting for all these, it's still hard to believe.

I think there is some inflation in the figures here, but it's long gone history and these men did their best in a war, so I won't dispute their claims too seriously.

[Apollo Leader]

IIRC, there are only a handful of 300+ kills aces. And truth to be told, it's hard to believe.

IIRC -- I'm working off very hazy memories here -- some of them had been around since the Kondor Legion in Spain, and had served on the Eastern Front (where the Russkies had no shortage of planes to let the Germans shoot down...), but even adjusting for all these, it's still hard to believe.

I think there is some inflation in the figures here, but it's long gone history and these men did their best in a war, so I won't dispute their claims too seriously.

392240[/snapback]

Not sure how many surpassed 300, but the greatest German ace of WWII and greatest ace of all time is Erich Hartmann. Unlike some German aces who I think had kills going back as far as Spain 1936 when Germany helped the facist government gain control there, Hartmann's 352 kills were all done during the last three years of the war. Undoubtedly, this is a feat that will probably never be beaten.

[Phalanx]

Sorry to quickly go off topic with this debate and discussion on WW2 aces but for anybody that's interested or probably does/doesn't know about this, there was an F-14 variant called Tomcat 21 which actually the proposed F-14D Super Tomcat concept design. I have a link to the story below that also contains pics of it. I think that redesign of the main body/glove vane's area was great despite the F-14's main body looking slightly more circular than the original F-14. I also didn't know that the F-14 was actually intended to have TV engines but Grumman decided not to incorporate them to the aircraft:

http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/other/tomcat21.htm

Alright guys, carry on with your normal discussion about WW2 aces!

[Guest Bromgrev]

IIRC, there are only a handful of 300+ kills aces. And truth to be told, it's hard to believe.

IIRC -- I'm working off very hazy memories here -- some of them had been around since the Kondor Legion in Spain, and had served on the Eastern Front (where the Russkies had no shortage of planes to let the Germans shoot down...), but even adjusting for all these, it's still hard to believe.

I think there is some inflation in the figures here, but it's long gone history and these men did their best in a war, so I won't dispute their claims too seriously.

392240[/snapback]

Luftwaffe kill counts were very well documented, and most figures (including Hartmann's) are confirmed by both sides. The disparity between German and allied kill counts are mainly due to the way the different airforces assigned tours of duty to their pilots.

[Knight26]

there is also the fact that german pilots on the eastern front had a whole lot of unskilled pilots to fly against. The old joke was in order to be a russian pilot back then all you had to do was not call the airplane a tractor. I actually have a distant relative who was a pilot on the german eastern front with something like 200 kills to his name. After the failed attempt to assassinate hitler he was heard saying "too bad" the next day SS troops met him on the airfield after landing and gave him two options. Be arrested, sent to the gas chamber with his whole family, or take a plane loaded with bombs and half tank of fuel and fly east to Moscow. Family legend says that he took the second choice in order to save his family.

As for Tomcat21, great concept and think most of us here have known about it for years. The whole TVE issue though was never seriously engaged my northrup-grumman though as it was shown that incorporating them would require serious structural modifications to the rear end of the aircraft. Despite what some people may think it is not easy to adapt TVEs to older airframes, especially anything pre-F-15. And, it was not exactly easy to modify the F-15 to take them either.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Sure a lot of the German aces racked it up against low quality opposition during 41-42 (but even then, flying a warbird in combat over the russian front can't be a picnic) but people like Hartmann came onto the scene late, by that time the Soviets had improved training and equipment which in some aspects were superior to the German planes.

And people like Galland, Marseille and Glunz scored their kills in the west.

I am pretty sure if US pilots like Meyer, McCampbell and Bong had a longer tour and if there were as many Japanese planes in the air as the Soviets, they would reasonably be expected to score over 100 kills too.

I am still most impressed by Marseille. Something like 10-15 bullets on average to take down a plane. And all his 158 kills were RAF pilots.

edit : To those curious. Only 2 aces had over 300 kills. Hartmann (352) and Barkhorn (301). Next was Rall at 272.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Skull Leader]

Been meaning to post this for some time.

I recently bought a CafeReo Military Aircraft Series 1 JWings 1/144 F-14A. Here are some pics:

Just curious, how accurate to an F-14A is this?

391749[/snapback]

Except for carrying the LANTIRN pod, it's pretty accurate for an early/mid F-14A. VF-84 never carried the LANTIRN pod, as it didn't really go into service until VF-103 became the Jolly Rogers. Otherwise, looks pretty accurate.

[Knight26]

I dunno the whole forward fuselage looks a bit off to me, way too blunted.

[Skull Leader]

meh, it's 1/144 scale, I can forgive that in such a small scale , in fact I rather expect proportional problems. For example, the bases of the two tailfins are WAY too big in that scale.

I will say that the Vegabond stripe is WAY too far forward on the nose (the top should sit under the front of the canopy, not way up in front of the windscreen itself)

It appears to pretty much be a diecast replica of the Dragon 1/144 kit.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Skull Leader

[F-ZeroOne]

Okay, we've heard a lot about the fighter jocks. They make the headlines.

Who makes the history, though?

The bomber crews.

A few that I know: Guy Gibson, VC, goes almost without saying. He completed 174 missions over Germany (although 99 were actually as a night-fighter pilot in Beaufighters) and his leadership of the specially formed 617 Squadron is practically as much a part of British folklore as King Arthur and his knights.

Slightly less well known was Leonard Chesire - also VC - who must have been one of the most experienced bomber pilots in any of the combatants air forces by the end of the war; he flew 100 operations and his 101st was as the British observer at the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. He followed Guy Gibson as leader of 617 Squadron, and developed a technique of dive-bombing V-1 launching sites - in a Lancaster bomber.

Finally in my brief selection, Donald Bennett, who led RAF Bomber Commmands Pathfinder Force. Before the war, he developed an expertise in long-range flying, and was one of only a handful of pilots at that time to hold a masters air navigation licence - at a time when aerial navigation often meant dropping down to read the signs at a nearby railway station!

During the war, and before his assignment to the Pathfinders, Bennett was shot down during a raid on the Tirpitz and walked back to freedom through Sweden!

Needless to say, he had extensive experience of bombing operations and knew navigation backwards and forwards - in short, not someone you accused of not knowing what he was talking about!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hey guys was the Jug a good fighter? It looks HUGE and I did hear its best trait was its dive and zoom tactics due to its speed and momentum. looks fierce.

The hellcat is awesome. I hope BBI comes through with that thing. One of the first grumman cats to kick major ass.

What do you guys think of the Tigercat? Do you think it could take the hellcat on? How about against the corsair? And for the sake of vs discussion...

P-47 bubbletop jug vs P-51D mustang

hellcat vs tigercat vs corsair 3 way matchup

seafire vs hellcat

seafre vs P-51D

P-51D vs ME-109

P-51D vs BF-109

IL-2 Sturmovik vs Stuka(which was the better attacker and had the best self defense capability?)

P-51D vs Zero

Bearcat vs Tigercat vs Hellcat vs Corsair(4 way matchip...3 grumman felines against each other and a corsair thrown in for good measure).

The more I hear about a2a in ww2...the more I became infatuated with it and more reason for me to buy some more 1/18 scale warbirds!

btw knight26....you partially introduced me to the hobby with your BBI hornet review that I asked you about last year. Do you have any BBI or 21st century warbirds?

Also I did hear the Jug was known for ground attack..but was it a killer in a2a? For that matter, which was a better fighter, that or the Lightning?

[Mislovrit]

Luftwaffe kill counts were very well documented, and most figures (including Hartmann's) are confirmed by both sides. The disparity between German and allied kill counts are mainly due to the way the different airforces assigned tours of duty to their pilots.

For the USN and USAAF they could afford to pull experience pilots from the front and have their train new pilots everything they know.

[David Hingtgen]

Umm, P-51D vs BF-109 and P-51D vs ME-109---what's the difference? Also, the 109 has a HUGE range of variants, you've gotta at least specify E, G, K, etc.

[Phalanx]

Shin, as for that matchup involving the Mustang and a Zero-sen, it's pretty obvious which would win, not to insult your intelligence or anything. The mustang will kick the Zero's ass because it's faster and more maneuverable than the slow Zero fighter, but if the Ki-84 Hayate "Oscar" were to go up against it, I think it would be draw since it's performance equals the Mustang. BTW Shin, I had no idea that you had such a huge infatuation with WW2 planes. I honestly assumed that you were in to modern jet planes like some other people.

As for you guys here's the rundown of my fav WW2 Battle birds:

America:

Fighter's

P-51

P-38

P-40

P-47

P-61

F-5U Flying Pancake "prototype plane that never entered service"

P-55 Ascender "prototype plane that never entered service"

Bombers:

B-29

B-35 Flying Wing

B-36 Peacemaker

B-47 Flying Wing

Japanese Fighters"

Zero

Shinden

Hayate

Seiran

Bombers:

Fugaku

British:

Hawker Siddley Hurricane

Spitfire

German:

BF-109

Shtuka

Ta-152 Focke Wulfe

Me-262

Italian:

Fiat G.56

Russian:

Polykarpov

[Lynx7725]

Hey guys was the Jug a good fighter? It looks HUGE and I did hear its best trait was its dive and zoom tactics due to its speed and momentum. looks fierce. 

[.. Snip ..]

P-51D vs ME-109/ BF-109

Also I did hear the Jug was known for ground attack..but was it a killer in a2a?  For that matter, which was a better fighter, that or the Lightning?

392473[/snapback]

Jug, as far as I can recall, wasn't exactly a good dogfighter. Could dive like a brick out of the way and can go like a bat-outta-hell, but not dogfight; that's fine 'cos that's the way they fought in Europe, high-alt and high speed. I personally don't like it precisely because it handled like a brick.

Jug vs. Lightning, I think both are good planes. I'll personally go with the Lightning though; For one, it has two engines....

Again, in sims, I've flown the Tigercat. It was a dated sim though, so hard to say.. but it's a nice two-engine. Quite good to fly. Can't quite recall how good it is against Hellcat and Corsairs, but one thing is for sure -- I have a healthy respect for late-war Corsairs' torque.

As for the P-51 vs. Bf-109, the Bf-109 suffered from a major performance differentiate IMO. A good pilot can still pull it off, but I'll stack the odds with the P-51.

Shin, as for that matchup involving the Mustang and a Zero-sen, it's pretty obvious which would win, not to insult your intelligence or anything. The mustang will kick the Zero's ass because it's faster and more maneuverable than the slow Zero fighter,

392498[/snapback]

A P-51 is more maneuverable than the Zero?

Err, the Zero did have a reputation for a reason. The P-51 is probably faster -- most American fighters are -- but at low speed, low alt, flaps out, the Zero outturns pretty much everything. A well-flown Zero would be very difficult to go against, especially in the Pacific with the 'Stang's sensitivity and vulnerability.

And the Zero packs 20mms. Not a lot of rounds, but it does have them...

[David Hingtgen]

I was going to post that, but was waiting for someone else to do it first. A Zero can TURN and should never be dismissed. Zero's main problem is sheer durability--what would be light/minor damage on most planes is fatal to a Zero.

[Phalanx]

How bout this matchup the P-38 vs the Ta-152 Focke Wulfe. Do you know which one would win? The Focke Wulfe would win. Why? Due to the fact that since this plane was optimized for the high altitude bomber intercept and destroy role, the pilot would be able to use this desgnated role to it's advantage over the P-38 since the main problem with it is that the engines would freeze at high altitudes and it's maneuverability is a little sluggish due to it's design or weight.(I think)

Also Dave, stay safe from that mumps outbreak in Iowa, I don't want you to get seriously ill.

[Knight26]

My 1:18 collection currently consists of:

21st:

Stuhka

Corsair (originally gave it to my G-Pa, I got it after his passing this february)

F-104

AH-1W Cobra

AH-64 Apache

BBI:

P-51

Zero

F-16

F/A-18

I am seriously considering getting the Admiral Toys F-86, the 21st Avenger (marine markings, since that is what my G-Pa flew) and if it ever comes out the A-10.

[David Hingtgen]

Along the same vein as my earlier post--what version?

British P-38's sucked as we discussed just a little earlier. The definitive US P-38's rocked. Why do you think they got up to version "J" so quickly? They were fixing problems left and right, with many subvariants for each letter.

Same for the Ta152---there are dedicated high and low altitude versions.

[Mislovrit]

Due to the fact that since this plane was optimized for the high altitude bomber intercept and destroy role,

Fighting bombers is quite different from fighting other fighters, or interceptors.

the pilot would be able to use this desgnated role to it's advantage over the P-38 since the main problem with it is that the engines would freeze at high altitudes and it's maneuverability is a little sluggish due to it's design or weight.(I think)

I suggest you read up a bit on the Lightning here.

[F-ZeroOne]

Someone once said of the Thunderbolt that "the only thing it could do well is dive!" (while the RAF said it was so big you could evade enemy fire by running around the cockpit...!). However, the Thunderbolt had power, which at high altitude is very important; the Luftwaffe found that at altitude the Jug could be quite agile. It also had a reputation for being very, very tough.

The Zero was always dangerous in a dogfight situation; it had many disadvantages against later US aircraft but that doesn't mean a P-51 would have an automatic win (the "Hayabusa" or "Oscar", the Japanese Army fighter, was also obselete by mid-war but was so incredibly agile that a lone one could still be dangerous if well flown; four P-38s once tried to engage a single Oscar and basically went home "talking to themselves", as one pilot described it).

David makes a very good point about aircraft variants - a Spitfire Mk. XIV was a very different beast to the Spitfire Mk. I. The early P-51s (A-36s, IIRC?), for example, were fast low down but sucked at altitude due to the Allison engine; it was only when the Merlin was installed that they became the truly great fighter of late war.

[buddhafabio]

Along the same vein as my earlier post--what version?

British P-38's sucked as we discussed just a little earlier.  The definitive US P-38's rocked.  Why do you think they got up to version "J" so quickly?  They were fixing problems left and right, with many subvariants for each letter. 

Same for the Ta152---there are dedicated high and low altitude versions.

392535[/snapback]

you know another reason why the british p-38 sucked and the americans rocked. was because the p-38didnt have the range needed to be effective. then Charles Lindbergh in april of 1944 went to the combat theater in the pacific to be a "observer" and almost doubled the range of the p-38. Also got a kill and was brought back to the united states in fear he may endanger his life.

[Phalanx]

Someone once said of the Thunderbolt that "the only thing it could do well is dive!" (while the RAF said it was so big you could evade enemy fire by running around the cockpit...!). However, the Thunderbolt had power, which at high altitude is very important; the Luftwaffe found that at altitude the Jug could be quite agile. It also had a reputation for being very, very tough.

The Zero was always dangerous in a dogfight situation; it had many disadvantages against later US aircraft but that doesn't mean a P-51 would have an automatic win (the "Hayabusa" or "Oscar", the Japanese Army fighter, was also obselete  by mid-war but was so incredibly agile that a lone one could still be dangerous if well flown; four P-38s once tried to engage a single Oscar and basically went home "talking to themselves", as one pilot described it).

David makes a very good point about aircraft variants - a Spitfire Mk. XIV was a very different beast to the Spitfire Mk. I. The early P-51s (A-36s, IIRC?), for example, were fast low down but sucked at altitude due to the Allison engine; it was only when the Merlin was installed that they became the truly great fighter of late war.

392602[/snapback]

Mislovrit, thanx for the info about the P-38. I had no idea that it spawned so many variants. As for the Spitfire being the #5 fighter plane in the world thats the best according to aviation historians, the Spitfire Mk XIV was different from the standard model due to the fact that this one boasted four 20 MM cannons opposed to the 8 yes 8 20 MM cannons the original one used. If I were Brit, I would stick to the Spitfire Mk I because of it's additional armament of 8 cannons for added offensive power. Also, Mislovrit since the Ta-152 was designed soley for high altitude intercept of bomber planes, I was just insisting that it could use it's high altitude capabilities to its advantage over any plane that lacked high altitude capabilities.

P.S "Hayabusa" means peregrine falcon

[Guest Bromgrev]

Okay, we've heard a lot about the fighter jocks. They make the headlines.

Who makes the history, though?

The bomber crews. 

392443[/snapback]

One of my great-uncles was a Ju87 (Stuka) pilot. Didn't do too well, though, he ended the war in an asylum. Kind of 'lost his nerve' after getting shot down over the British Channel, and having his rear gunner strafed out of his arms. Bummer.

As for the Spitfire being the #5 fighter plane in the world thats the best according to aviation historians, the Spitfire Mk XIV was different from the standard model due to the fact that this one boasted four 20 MM cannons opposed to the 8 yes 8 20 MM cannons the original one used. If I were Brit, I would stick to the Spitfire Mk I because of it's additional armament of 8 cannons for added offensive power.

392630[/snapback]

You're under a slight misapprehension there, Phalanx. The early marks of Spitfire had eight .303" machine guns. Somewhat less impressive than 20mm cannon, I think you'll agree. Cannon were introduced slowly because their explosive ammunition was not reliable at first, among other reasons. Mid-mark Spitfires went to two cannon and four machine guns, then to four cannon.

I'd still stick with a Mk.1a because it's so pretty!

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

The Jug could hold its own against the more 'nimble' opponents because it had a turbo which allowed it to keep its power at 30k+ feet when escorting the bombers. The German birds (esp the Fw190s) lost a lot of power at high alts since their superchargers were not as good at higher alts.

Low down, well its still tough as hell but they had to stay fast. For all its complicated turbo plumbing, the dang thing could take hits pretty well without having its engine dying on it.

And 8 Brownings pack quite a punch.

I understand that the Oscars were even more nimble then the Zekes. Same power, even lighter frame with less fuel. But the damn thing packed only peashooters. An Oscar could pump its entire magazineload into a P-47 or Hellcat and the US bird could still fly home.

[Noyhauser]

As for the Spitfire being the #5 fighter plane in the world thats the best according to aviation historians, the Spitfire Mk XIV was different from the standard model due to the fact that this one boasted four 20 MM cannons opposed to the 8 yes 8 20 MM cannons the original one used. If I were Brit, I would stick to the Spitfire Mk I because of it's additional armament of 8 cannons for added offensive power.

392630[/snapback]

You're under a slight misapprehension there, Phalanx. The early marks of Spitfire had eight .303" machine guns. Somewhat less impressive than 20mm cannon, I think you'll agree. Cannon were introduced slowly because their explosive ammunition was not reliable at first, among other reasons. Mid-mark Spitfires went to two cannon and four machine guns, then to four cannon.

I'd still stick with a Mk.1a because it's so pretty!

392646[/snapback]

Spits were intended quite early on to carry the Hispano II 20mm Cannon, however it was the design of the Spitfire, not the ammunition that prevented its early introduction. Apparently the weapon was inteded to be fusalage mounted, but instead came to be wing mounted, which was not stable enough and made the gun prone to jamming. There was also problems with the gun freezing over. However when it did work, the Hispano cannon did impressive damage, to the point that the War Ministry kept production lines going, even though no plane mounted the weapon.

Personally I like late mark spitfires, such as the MK XIV, up to the MK XXIV and my personal favorite, the spiteful.

[Apollo Leader]

Since this is aviation related, I'll post it here:

Legendary test pilot Scott Crossfield killed in plane crash.

A few hours ago it was being posted on news sites that his private Cesna was missing but it was unknown if Crossfield was unboard. But now it has been confirmed that the first man to break Mach 2 is dead.

BTW, some sources are reporting he was the first man to also break Mach 3 which is incorrect. It was an X-2 that first broke Mach 3 piloted by Mel Apt and Apt died on that flight.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Apollo Leader

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

As for the Spitfire being the #5 fighter plane in the world thats the best according to aviation historians, the Spitfire Mk XIV was different from the standard model due to the fact that this one boasted four 20 MM cannons opposed to the 8 yes 8 20 MM cannons the original one used. If I were Brit, I would stick to the Spitfire Mk I because of it's additional armament of 8 cannons for added offensive power.

392630[/snapback]

You're under a slight misapprehension there, Phalanx. The early marks of Spitfire had eight .303" machine guns. Somewhat less impressive than 20mm cannon, I think you'll agree. Cannon were introduced slowly because their explosive ammunition was not reliable at first, among other reasons. Mid-mark Spitfires went to two cannon and four machine guns, then to four cannon.

I'd still stick with a Mk.1a because it's so pretty!

392646[/snapback]

Spits were intended quite early on to carry the Hispano II 20mm Cannon, however it was the design of the Spitfire, not the ammunition that prevented its early introduction. Apparently the weapon was inteded to be fusalage mounted, but instead came to be wing mounted, which was not stable enough and made the gun prone to jamming. There was also problems with the gun freezing over. However when it did work, the Hispano cannon did impressive damage, to the point that the War Ministry kept production lines going, even though no plane mounted the weapon.

Personally I like late mark spitfires, such as the MK XIV, up to the MK XXIV and my personal favorite, the spiteful.

392697[/snapback]

Whats the spiteful?

[F-ZeroOne]

Whats the spiteful?

392730[/snapback]

The Spiteful was a very late war British design; it entered service a bit too late to see action in World War II. It could be described as a very late model Spitfire with a laminar flow wing, plus other modifications which essentially made it a new aircraft (although its lineage is obvious, and I think in the film "Reach for the Sky" a couple of Spitefuls are actually seen acting as "Spitfires"...!).

For the record, my favourite Spitfire is the Mark IX, which combines the elegant looks of the original with performance. As for it being the Worlds number 5 fighter...? Not on

this side of the pond...

Sad news about Scott Crossfield. Sorry to hear it.

Edited April 20, 2006 by F-ZeroOne

[Coota0]

Heard the P-47 was preferred for ground interdiction because of the air cooled radial engine, over the P-51s inline, liquid cooled engine, apparently the radial could take a ton of punishment and keep on flying.

[David Hingtgen]

That's a big issue for most all WW2 engines---liquid cooled inlines tend not to do well for battle damage---one bullet in any line will stop them dead really fast, while air-cooled radials tended to suck up a lot more punishment, as well as usually being easier to armor.

[Rocket Punch]

A little off topic:

It doesn't carry missiles or have vulcan cannons or anything but...

Long Beach Sends Off Last Boeing 717

I heard this ultimately means the plant will be shut down, which is sad considering its 60+ year history, plus all the folks who've worked there most of their lives losing their jobs.

[Knight26]

Boeing Long Beach will remain open for a few more years at least, probably until at least 2010 working on the C-17, plus doing retrofits on C-17s and 717s. The plant may eventually close but it will be a while, plus Boeing has other projects in the pipe that they may send down there. Additionally many of those employees may be moved up to Boeing Seattle should Boeing Long Beach ever close. The only reason that plant has remained open as long as it has is because of all the McD-D hardware already being built there when it was acquired.

[Rocket Punch]

Oh, phew. I feel much better now. I love driving around the plant on my way to Signal Hill.