“Of course, Germany gets the bigger half” ( referring to the division of the globe between Germany and Japan)- Moe Howard in “You Nazi Spy”
Coolest aircraft made during WW2
-
Of all the things about WW2 that ive read or watch, never once had i heard anything about Russain aircraft.
-
The russians had some very excellent designs, although generally inferior to German aircraft. They were often much cruder machines although German pilots generally respected the flying characteristics of such outstanding aircraft as Yaks and La-5/La-7s
-
On 2002-03-26 16:46, mini_phreek wrote:
Well thats what you gey for raming your planes into amarican ships.i like the RAF hurrican, good bomber killer and better handling then the spitfire
it is “American”, and i believe the kamikaze attacks (organized ones) started in 44.
the spitfire was 100 MPH faster (well,later ones…)
-
i said better handling that means it has better stall recovery and the turn and bank is smoother.
-
A big problem with Western Historians is that they tended to regard the the reason why Germans aces were able to amount such an amazing kill rate on the Eastern War as due to “inferior” Russian design and pilots. But the Yakovlev Yak 9 and La-7 was one of the best fighters of the war and Herman suggested that the Germans avoid dogfighting with the La-7 at altitudes below 5,000 meters.
-
On 2002-03-26 17:18, Soon_U_Die wrote:
For its role…hands down the Russkie Sturmovik ground assault aircraft.Joseph Stalin…promptly ordered that production of the Sturmovik was to take priority over production of all other weapon systems, ground or air.
SUD
Yes, the Ilyushin 2 was an awesome aircraft–nicknamed the flying tank (much like the American P-47 “Thunderbolt”) because of its ability to take incredible damage and still bring one home–definitely a plus for the pilot…
I, too think ground-attack planes deserve more of the limelight…
Ozone27
-
A lot of the german aces shot a good deal of aircraft down before Russia.
Still, by statistics, the Russian planes were inferior (well, maybe equal to a crappy Me 109.) -
The ME 109 was not a “crappy” aircraft.
-
Actually at lower altitudes (where most of the fighting on the Eastern Front took place) Russian planes had the advantage. The only exception I can think of to this are the MiGs; they were fairly poor below 16,500 ft but they were great above that, being a full 30 mi/hr faster than a Bf 109 at altitude. Since there were no Bf 109s (or other German aircraft) at that altitude MiGs were used as high altitude recon craft.
I believe that most German aces on the Eastern Front got a large number of their kills when strafing the virtually unprotected airfields in the early days of the invasion when an unholy percentage of the VVS was destroy. -
I don’t think that the Me-109 would be a crappy aircraft if the Germans produced over 30,000 of them (the highest build of any fighter).
-
A pilot doesnt get a “kill” for shooting up aircraft on a runway.
Stukas did most of the ground damage anyway.
-
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-03-27 17:09 ]
-
I think in the first day of operation barbrossa, 1500 russian planes were destroyed, somewhere around 5,500 in one month. some good times for the luftwaffe.
my “crappy” me 109 comment stands. that guy named Kurt Tank who designed the Fw190 said the Me 109 was a “thirdbred racehorse”, and Heinkel came out with the He100, which came out barely after the me109 and was far better (especially speedwise.) I do not know how simple to build the Me 109 was, so maybe that was a factor…but maybe it wasn’t.
-
Was Kurt Tank a pilot?
It was a fine plane for most of the war.
-
Well if you look at the characteristics of the Me-109 was a formidable opponent. Its low speed handling qualities were excellent and its rate of climb matched the Spitfire.
It had a higher service ceiling and the major advantage of fuel injection. This allowed the Me-109’s powerplant to run flawlessly regardless of the aircraft’s attitude, which did not cut out at of negative G.
I think that the weakness of Me-109 were more on logistics and design rather then actual preformance. The cockpit of the M-109 was very small, poor visibility, poor range and endurance, hard to land.
However compared with the likes of the P-51 Mustang the 109 was definately obsolete.
Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-27 19:47 ]
-
Kurt tank was an aircraft designer, who also designed the Ta-183, the father if the Mig 15.
Some Me109 statistics:
first Me109: Bf109a, designed september 1935many types later, the ones in the beginning of the war were the Bf 109 D,E, and E-0 had MG17 machine guns for firepower.
The Bf 109 E-1 introduced 20mm cannons, and had a top speed of 354 MPH (first made in the beggining of 1939.)
near the end of the war, Me109s had speeds over 429 MPH. Two were operational before wars end (the K-14) that was as fast as 450MPH top speed.
The He100, which was competing to be built, but the Me109 was chosen, even though the He100 was better. Initial stability problems were fixed, and it had a top speed of 416MPH armed with two MG17s and a 20mm cannon, with a range of 625 miles.
I don’t have time right now to go into other aircraft…i’ll get back to you guys later.
-
some more statistics:
"Specifications (Fw 190D-9):
Engine: One 1,176-hp Junkers Jumo 213A-1 inverted V-12 piston engine
Weight: Empty 7,694 lbs., Max Takeoff 10,670 lbs.
Wing Span: 34ft. 5.5in.
Length: 33ft. 5.5in.
Height: 11ft. 0in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 426 mph
Ceiling: 39,370 ft.
Range: 519 miles
Armament:
Two 13-mm (0.51-inch) MG 131 machine guns
Two 20-mm MG 151
One 1,102-pound SC500 bombNumber Built: 20,051"
http://www.warbirdalley.com/fw190.htm
more advanced versions of the Fw190 were made, supposedly faster and more manueverable than the mustang, but there were engine problems (poor craftsmanship), and only two Ta 152H-1s survived the war.
"Specifications (Bf-109G-6):
Engine: 1800-hp Daimler-Benz DB-605 inverted V-12 piston engine
Weight: Empty 5,893 lbs., Max Takeoff 6,945 lbs.
Wing Span: 32ft. 6.5in.
Length: 29ft. 7in.
Height: 11ft. 2in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at at 23,000 ft: 385mph
Ceiling: 38,500 ft
Range: 450 miles
Armament:
Two 13mm (0.51-inch) MG131 machine guns
Three 20mm MG151 cannonNumber Built: ~35,000"
i think i stated earlier that there was a me109 built that went somewhere in the 400s, but i can’t find it at this time."Specifications (P-51D):
Engine: One 1,695-hp Packard Merlin V-1650-7 piston V-12 engine
Weight: Empty 7,125 lbs., Max Takeoff 12,100 lbs.
Wing Span: 37ft. 0.5in.
Length: 32ft. 9.5in.
Height: 13ft. 8in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 437 mph
Ceiling: 41,900 ft.
Range: 1300 miles
Armament: Six 12.7-mm (0.5 inch) wing-mounted machine guns, plus up to two 1,000-lb bombs or six 127-mm (5 inch) rockets.Number Built: Approximately 15,018 (including ~200 built in Australia)"
The Mustang was the king of piston engined planes, and in my opinion, the most effective fighter of the war.
-
Heck yeah! The P-51D was indeed what I considered the best plane of the war. It preformed well at all altitudes and had unmatched fuel endurance and speed. Plus the P-51D was suited for a variety of task ranging from low level dive bomber to high altitude Bomber escorts. If that wasn’t enough the P-51 was also successful against Me-262 Jet Fighters and Communists MiGs in the Korea War.
-
wasn’t the top P51 faster than the Do335 Pfeil?
i think the mustang holds the record for fastest piston engined plane…
my brother tells me that the maker of a battlebot named “T-Wrex” and “Omega-13” made the fastest piston engined plane and a robotic arm for something to do with the Titanic. i don’t believe him though. Tell me if i’m wrong, but the top mustang goes 484 i believe.
-
I can dispute the P-51’s “good” record against the Me-262. First off, P-51 pilots had extensive training before combat. So when they went into battle, they were prepared. Many of the P-51 kills against the Me-262 occurred when the Me-262 was either taking off or landing. The Me-262 was vulnerable during take off because its jet engines had poor initial acceleration. During landings, it was hard for the Me-262 to abort landings and get back into the air to fight off enemy aircraft. When it usually tried, it ended up in disaster. In both situations, the Me-262 was a sitting duck and an easy kill. Another point, the training of the jet pilots. Here we have a novel technology such as jet fighters and pilots receive the minimum of training. That could only lead to disaster. My last point, many of the Me-262 missions were basically suicide missions. For example, the largest single sortie of Me-262’s involved 55 of them versus a fleet of 2,000 US fighter escorts and bombers. 27 of the jets were destroyed. I rest my case. A little long, but people need to here both sides of the lop-sided story.
Suggested Topics
