NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm splitting this up into both Allied and Axis Planes since ten from both groups was just too hard to pick. Now by plane I mean front rotor fixed wing aircraft, not jet-engine aircraft seen in the final year or two of the war like the Me-111. I want to keep the feild open only to aircraft that saw full production runs and usage in the field.

I don't know much about the Soviet and French (cept french planes were horribly under gunned) aircraft so my list is based on wholly British and American Planes.

1. Tied between the Supermarine Spitfire and P-51 Mustang.
The Spitfire (and its naval counterpart the Seafire) was an excellent aircraft in most respects and like with all great aircraft was continually remodelled so that it would stay competitive, especially against its primary foe the BF-109. The Spitfire had far superior firepower to most other aircraft used by the allies; most variants used between 2 and 4 20mm Hispano Cannons that fired explosive rounds; capable of tearing enemy aircraft to shreds! Its only true drawback was its small fuel tanks that kept the range of even the latest versions to ranges of less than 1,500 km and gave it a short sortie time.
The P-51 Mustang was also a superb fighter that was comparible in performance to the British Spitfire and has sparked many debates as to which aircraft was better. The P-51 Mustang had the longest range of any single engine fighter used by the allies during the war, superb speed and manuevers, and had an ideal roll rate, it was also very capable of making very sharp turns and could outmanuever German Me-111s. Its biggest drawback since it only mounted machine guns giving it far less firepower than comparible aircraft.

3. P-38 Lightning
This is in all actuality my favorite WWII plane. The most decorated American Ace from the war piloted this aircraft and obtained more than 30 kills in the Pacific theater. Despite the horrible failures that most twin engine fighters became the P-38 shown brightly. Its most distinguishing feature is the firepower it possessed; with a 37 mm cannon and 4 .50 M2 machine guns mounted on its nose the Lightning had the most powerful armament of any US fighter with the possible exceptions of the Aircobra and Mauler. The Lightning was also a resilient fighter capable of surviving wounds that most of its peers wouldn't have. All this and it still managed a good long range and dogfighting capability.

4. Hawker Tempest
Fastest frontline airplane built by the British hands down. The Tempest was derived from the also excellent Typhoon. The Tempest featured firepower equal to that of the Spitfire and was optimized as a ground attack aircraft with a very good medium range that could also square off against German Interceptors.

5. DeHavillend Mosquito
The Mosquito was a hardy all wood twin engine fighter/bomber produced by DeHavillend with almost unsurpassed night/poor weather capabilities, it was also very fast!

6. P-40 Warhawk
Regarded by the general public as a poor machine the Warhawk was actually a great aircraft for the time of its enception. Though slower than its Japanese counterparts the Warhawk was the only one capable of going turn for turn with fighters like the "Zero" and "Oscar" with a superior service cieling to either one. This Plane was made famous by the American based Flying Tigers and has the honor of being piloted by more ace pilots than any other aircraft.

7. Hawker Hurricane
Although considered out dated by the BRAF by the onset of the war this plane was capable of meeting the Luftwaffe head on in battle and was a bigger deciding factor in the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire where it wreaked havoc on German Me-110s and Ju-88s. In the hands of a skilled pilot the Hurricane was one lethal machine. By 1942 the Hurricane was remodeld to carry 2 Hispano Cannons and used as a ground attacker for the rest of the War.

8. P-47 Thunderbolt
The Thunderbolt was also affectionatly known as "A Flying Brick" or "The Jug". Though this attacker could carry almost a ton of ordinance to a battlefield it was very fast and agile enough to avoid enemy fighters. The Thunderbolt was quite possibly the toughest single engine aircraft in use by the Allies as it was capable of flying into German AA fire with virtual impunity, very few were ever shot down.

9. B-17 Flying Fortress
The B-17 was armed to the teeth with so many .50 machine guns it was believed that it could stand up to attacking enemy fighters on its own without escorts; though this proved to be untrue the B-17 was a much dreaded sight in the skies above Nazi controlled territory for its ability to carry 8 metric tons of bombs and drop them on strategic targets behind enemy lines. Though many of these massive and expensive bombers were lost they had a key role in crippling German moral and industrial power.

The Gloster Meteor. First Allied jet aircraft, could be used to intercept V1s. Very nice aircraft indeed, came out of the war with a very fine record both in air-to-air combat, and as a ground attack craft using its 4 Hispano cannos and up to 16 RP-3 rockets.

The Gloster Meteor. First Allied jet aircraft, could be used to intercept V1s. Very nice aircraft indeed, came out of the war with a very fine record both in air-to-air combat, and as a ground attack craft using its 4 Hispano cannos and up to 16 RP-3 rockets.

Yes a good Aircraft, but not a plane ;)

Yes a good Aircraft, but not a plane ;)
How was it not a plane?

How was it not a plane?

He specifically said that only prop airplanes would be considered, since they served throughout the war.

Personally, I'd toss the good old Lancaster Bomber up there. Workhorse of the Royal Air Force, that was.

He specifically said that only prop airplanes would be considered, since they served throughout the war.
Oh, right. BOOOORING.

If it's just prop aeroplanes, I guess the Il-2 definitely deserves a mention. Most-produced military aircraft ever and the first proper, purpose-built strafing aircraft not just based off a fighter aircraft. The Il-10 was better, but came very late in the war.
Personally, I'd toss the good old Lancaster Bomber up there. Workhorse of the Royal Air Force, that was.
Aye. Quite a fine aircraft.

No love for the Navy? I would definitely toss the Hellcat in there. It shot down over 5,000 Japanese aircraft for only a shade over 250 of its own. That should make the list.

No love for the Navy? I would definitely toss the Hellcat in there. It shot down over 5,000 Japanese aircraft for only a shade over 250 of its own. That should make the list.
Somewhat undermined by the Japs flying planes whose crew training was about a week long, that were made of shoes and armed with rocks or something :p

If it's just prop aeroplanes, I guess the Il-2 definitely deserves a mention.


Seconded. Made a massive impact on the Eastern Front against the Luftwaffe.

What about the first aircraft to break 400 mph... the F4U Corsair

Somewhat undermined by the Japs flying planes whose crew training was about a week long, that were made of shoes and armed with rocks or something :p

A 29:1 kill ratio is still nothing to laugh at, despite the shorter training times for Japanese pilots.

Seconded. Made a massive impact on the Eastern Front against the Luftwaffe.
Not really, made more of a difference against the German army and SS formations than against the Luftwaffe. The La-5 did a lot of damage to the Luftwaffe, mind, and its next-in-line, the La-7 was about the best prop aircraft in the war in an air-to-air combat role.

What about the first aircraft to break 400 mph... the F4U Corsair
Crap guns, same problem as a lot of US aircraft in the war. A fifty-cal was alright against Japanese aircraft, but too weak when they got to Europe.

Not really, made more of a difference against the German army and SS formations than against the Luftwaffe. The La-5 did a lot of damage to the Luftwaffe, mind, and its next-in-line, the La-7 was about the best prop aircraft in the war in an air-to-air combat role.

Well it was more of a ground attack aircraft true. But from the time the Soviets began to push forwards from Stalingrad and Kursk onwards, it quite easily held it's own against the 'better' Luftwaffe planes.

Although, I guess the argument is not 'which is the better' plane, but 'who had the better pilots'.

I'd be tempted to say the RAF/combined multinational forces during the Battle of Britain. After all, a plane is just a hunk of metal without a good pilot behind her.

('Her'? Planes are feminine still, right?)

Crap guns, same problem as a lot of US aircraft in the war. A fifty-cal was alright against Japanese aircraft, but too weak when they got to Europe.

.50 cals were more powerful then the .303s spitfires and hurricanes had.

.50 cals were more powerful then the .303s spitfires and hurricanes had.
Indeed, also a massive problem with British aircraft until the Hispano was brought in. The only people who got it right early in the war were the Russians, with their excellent 20mm guns.

going for a totally Biased answer here as I come from Lincolnshire The Avro Lancaster

Indeed, also a massive problem with British aircraft until the Hispano was brought in. The only people who got it right early in the war were the Russians, with their excellent 20mm guns.

Do you have a cite for the .50 cal being underpowered enough to be considered a liability? To me, the Russians just had a differend design philosophy. Bigger, fewer guns compared to the american model of more, smaller guns. The Yak-9D had only a 7.7mm machine gun and the 23mm cannon.

Isn't it true that 1) in the early stages of the war, Japanese pilots were typically better trained than their Allied opponents? 2) for much of the war, the Spitfire's chief weakness was that it was under-gunned, having eight .30" machineguns, as contemporary Hurricanes, but spaced across a considerable length of the wings, limiting the concentration of fire? 3) some Hurricanes ended up with four 20mm cannons rather than just two?

I'm pretty sure it's true that British fighters of the time didn't have .303"s, anyway, and had to go for .30"s, possibly for technical/mechanical reasons, but possibly supply issues, I'll be damned if I can remember at this time of night/morning.

Do you have a cite for the .50 cal being underpowered enough to be considered a liability?
Not really, no, it just seems to me from gun camera footage from the US and GB planes that they were taking a while to destroy German planes, especially in comparison to how quickly they were downing Japanese planes.
To me, the Russians just had a differend design philosophy. Bigger, fewer guns compared to the american model of more, smaller guns.
Indeed.
The Yak-9D had only a 7.7mm machine gun and the 23mm cannon.
So? It was an underarmed long-range interceptor variant of the Yak-9. The better, and larger-produced, Yak-9U had a 20mm ShVAK and a 12.7mm MG. They weren't all that heavily armed because the aircraft they faced were mainly bombers after 1943, which were fairly easy pickings.

The Japanese were very well trained in the beginning of the war, many having seen action in China. Carrier pilots were the elite of the Japanese military. Problem was, so many died in the Coral Sea, Midway, and the other early campaigns that they had to be replaced by young pilots with no where near prewar levels of training. Just like the Germans and the Russians (to an extent).

Not really, no, it just seems to me from gun camera footage from the US and GB planes that they were taking a while to destroy German planes, especially in comparison to how quickly they were downing Japanese planes.

The Japanese were very well trained in the beginning of the war, many having seen action in China. Carrier pilots were the elite of the Japanese military. Problem was, so many died in the Coral Sea, Midway, and the other early campaigns that they had to be replaced by young pilots with no where near prewar levels of training. Just like the Germans and the Russians (to an extent).

...which again would lead me to think the plane has little do to with it, and it's more to do with the skill of the pilots themselves.

Not surprising that an unarmoured (typical Japanese) fighter takes less punishment than an armoured (everybody else's) equivalent, eh.

Yeah...oh, wait, getting off topic. [Rambling about daft German practices vs. letting pilots rest at some point before they get killed]

Not really, no, it just seems to me from gun camera footage from the US and GB planes that they were taking a while to destroy German planes, especially in comparison to how quickly they were downing Japanese planes.


Then we can't say that it was a flaw without evidence beyond our observations. I have never heard of weak armament being a problem with American fighters, and until an expert says otherwise, I shall mantain my status quo.


So? It was an underarmed long-range interceptor variant of the Yak-9. The better, and larger-produced, Yak-9U had a 20mm ShVAK and a 12.7mm MG. They weren't all that heavily armed because the aircraft they faced were mainly bombers after 1943, which were fairly easy pickings.

The Yak-9U didn't fly in the prototype stage until December 1943. It did not enter combat until mid-summer 1944. It was the D model that saw the most combat during the war.

Either way, I was simply calling attention to the fact that the Russians had a different design philosophy. Fewer, bigger guns were the way to go for them.

F4U Corsair & the B-24 'Liberator' bomber might belong on the list. The B-24 was built in far larger numbers than the better-known B-17, and carried twice the bomb load. Its drawbacks seem to be that it was considered to have a lower combat survivability and it handled rather poorly.

The Grumman F6F Hellcat belongs on the list. It turned the tide against the supremacy of the Japanese Zero.

F4U Corsair & the B-24 'Liberator' bomber might belong on the list. The B-24 was built in far larger numbers than the better-known B-27, and carried twice the bomb load. Its drawbacks seem to be that it was considered to have a lower combat survivability and it handled rather poorly.

I agree with you there, but what about the first heavy bomber to take off from an aircraft carrier, the B-25 deserves to be on the list too. I believe the best plane was the P-51, it had the biggest impact:hail:

My grandmother flew a MiG-3 in WWII

I'd say the B-17 for effectiveness in the war.

The P-40 is often underrated. It wasn't as advanced as later allied fighters, but it was heavily armed and could take a beating, and it more than held its own against the Japanese Zero.

My grandmother flew a MiG-3 in WWII

Wow. Your grandmother is a badass.

F-14>all

It may have been 20-30 years too late, but it is still the best allied aircraft of WW2.

What about the Mosquito?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

What about the Mosquito?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

F-14>all

What is so hard for people to get that through their heads?

I agree w/ the F-14, how BA would that have been in WWII.

What about the first aircraft to break 400 mph... the F4U Corsair

+1000

The Corsair is a beautiful and formidable aircraft that was designed in 1938, and was used up until the 60's in some air forces.

The Corsair was a great aircraft indeed. And cool looking. And it gets almost no press.

F-14>all

What is so hard for people to get that through their heads?

It's not a WWII aircraft. And it's ugly.

I agree w/ the F-14, how BA would that have been in WWII.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080736/

It's not a WWII aircraft. And it's ugly.

I agree with the first part. But the second part? Them's fightin' words!

F4U Corsair & the B-24 'Liberator' bomber might belong on the list. The B-24 was built in far larger numbers than the better-known B-27, and carried twice the bomb load. Its drawbacks seem to be that it was considered to have a lower combat survivability and it handled rather poorly.

the what

I agree with the first part. But the second part? Them's fightin' words!

I find it aesthetically unappealing. If I don't like the way it looks, I don't like the way it looks. Then again, I don't like the way most military jet aircraft look. With some notable exceptions.

I really hate the way postwar aircraft carriers look as well.

Enola Gay

the what

My apologies. B-17!!! Typo fixed.

I think the P-61 (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=78) would have been the best had it been introduced earlier. It came in too late to have any impact. It was equipped with Radar and built as a night fighter. But for planes that served longer, the P-51 was probably the best, with the Spitfire right on its hells.

It's hard to say which Allied aircraft was the best, as you have to consider each aircraft's role. I'll break it down as best as I possibly can, complete with tiers.


High Altitude Escort

North American P-51D Mustang

It could go all the way to Berlin and back and still have enough fuel to fight. It had more than sufficient firepower (6x.50cal M2 machine guns), outstanding visibility, exceptional speed, and fine maneuverability. But most of all, it was reliable, moreso than any other aircraft of the war, requiring low maintenance and almost zero break-in time for its Packard-built Rolls-Royce Merlin V-1650 engine. And what a beautiful sound that engine makes.


High Altitude Interceptor

Supermarine Spitfire LF Mk.XIVe

Its climb rate was unbelievable, only rivaled by the Messerschmitt Bf-109K-4 (now, the Me-163B Komet totally out-classed all of these, but it's a rocket-powered aircraft, so it's a moot point). Its top speed was almost 460mp/h, so it could run down every single piston-powered aircraft produced during the war. On top of that, its range was fairly good, given the addition of a fuselage-mounted slipper tank; its maneuverability was also excellent, as was its cockpit visibility. In addition to all of this, it packed quite a punch, being armed with 2x.50cal M2 machine guns and 2x20mm Hispano cannons.


High Altitude Superiority

Chance-Vought F4U-4 Corsair

There's not a single aircraft from the war that could match the F4U-4 Corsair at high altitude. Yes, the Spitfire Mk.XIV beat it out for the Interceptor role because of its exceptional rate of climb and slightly higher top speed (the Corsair series wasn't particularly noted for such, even the mighty -4), this is true. But all things considered, the F4U-4 Corsair dominates every aspect of high-altitude combat. It retains energy almost as well as the P-51D, its "zoom" characteristics (maintaining speed during a quick climb, or gaining speed during a dive) are unmatched, its maneuverability borders on UFO levels (it appears to just "float" when full flaps are deployed, fighting at stall speeds), its acceleration is top-notch, and it packs a pretty good punch (6x.50cal M2 machine guns). A nightmare to fight against, to be sure.


Ground Attack

Republic P-47D Thunderbolt

Pack a huge amount of available weapons package options, unprecedented pilot protection, outstanding range, flawless cockpit visibility, and speed all into one aircraft, and you've got the P-47D. No multi-role aircraft was better suited for ground attack than this one, and you might not think it, but it was also a very capable dogfighter.


Low Altitude Interceptor

Lavochkin La-7

Acceleration. Speed. Climb rate. Firepower. This little fighter has all of it in spades, and then some... Below 10,000 feet, anyway. "On the deck", there was no better short-range point defense fighter. A particular field mod, which changed the two 20mm ShVak cannons for three Berezin B-20 cannons, made it an outright monster.


Low Altitude Superiority

Yakovlev Yak-3

What the La-7 couldn't do, the Yak-3 could. It could stay in the air longer, was more reliable, and matched its maneuverability (though not in the most obvious ways). What makes the Yak-3 a better superiority fighter is the fact that it could stay in the air much longer than the La-7, and was able to take more punishment. But what really makes the Yak-3 shine, and I do mean shine, is its performance in the vertical, and its ability to execute a completely flawless and majestic rolling scissors maneuver (something very useful for getting a great overhead deflection shot on your enemy).



I've made these decisions based on whitepaper data, test flight data, firsthand accounts from pilots, and simulation tests. I don't care if you whine all day and night, but the F6F-5 Hellcat was inferior to the Yak-3 in almost every way. The Hellcat was such a success because it had good all-around performance coupled with very fine tactics, not because it was a beast of a machine (keep in mind that it couldn't even hit 415mp/h).

snip

What about bombers?

La-7.

(Wtf 6 character limit)

What about bombers?

I was going strictly by fighters there, obviously. I'd do one for bombers and dedicated attack aircraft, but I'm too tired.

La-7.

(Wtf 6 character limit)

But it's shit above 10,000 feet. Below, though, it's a fucking monster.

I was going strictly by fighters there, obviously. I'd do one for bombers and dedicated attack aircraft, but I'm too tired.

Maybe tomorrow?

Maybe tomorrow?

That'd probably work.

The Mosquito was considered the most irksome to the Germans - if we're merely talking about the European aspect of the war - not so much for what it did but more for what it represented, the ability of the British to quickly come up with an innovative solution - source: Agent Zigzag, great book

Churchill feared that the British soldier was not up to the German equivalent as a fighting force, Hitler feared Britain's ability to come up with an effective solution to any problem - source - Churchill, A biography, by Roy Jenkins and another great book.

I think the Mosquito, for what it was, was pretty superb.

Isn't it true that 1) in the early stages of the war, Japanese pilots were typically better trained than their Allied opponents? 2) for much of the war, the Spitfire's chief weakness was that it was under-gunned, having eight .30" machineguns, as contemporary Hurricanes, but spaced across a considerable length of the wings, limiting the concentration of fire? 3) some Hurricanes ended up with four 20mm cannons rather than just two?

I'm pretty sure it's true that British fighters of the time didn't have .303"s, anyway, and had to go for .30"s, possibly for technical/mechanical reasons, but possibly supply issues, I'll be damned if I can remember at this time of night/morning.


all planes during the war had the guns angled in the wings so the streams of lead converged at a point in front of the plane. IIRC standard RAF practice was 200 yards.

Armament at the beginning of the war was also a case of the higher brass planning for the last war, which as you may recall was fought with canvas and wire planes with no spare capacity for armour... whereas british, german and american planes had stragetic sheets of steel or aluminium around the pilots seat. not much armour, but enough. the 8 machineguns would have chewed up a pilot in WW1, but against much more manuverable planes, making hitting the pilots cockpit more difficult, added to armour and more durable planes themselves, meant that as the war progressed the aim changed from "kill the pilot and let the plane crash" to "make the plane crash and hope it kills the pilot"
a slight difference in object there :D hence the "man killing" .303 changing to "plane killing" 20mm.

As to .30's in the spitfires, nope, I'm sure they used .303 only.
You may be confusing things with the P14/M17 rifle supply problems during WW1. British manufaturing couldn't turn out Lee Enfields fast enough so they pulled the suspended Pattern 1914 rifle dies and tooling out of storage and shipped it to the US and had US firms make P14 .303 rifles under contract. later in the war once english could supply all their own rifles, and the US entered the war, the US govt had the same problem that they couldn't make either springfield 1903's fast enough. So the US govt took the same tooling for the P14, changed a few bits of the bolt and chamber to handle the .30-06, and issued the M17. A British rifle was the US's main issue rifle during the first world war.

next up, US .50 against the Zero et al. well, the zero had Zero armour, and none of the protection devices such as self sealing tanks considered essential by western designers. in comparison to western planes the zero was downright flimsy and a deathtrap.
On the other hand, no armour meant less weight, giving much snappier handling for the same size and engine power.

spitfire.absolutely wonderful plane

P-51, or P-38. I also think that the Hellcat was excellent.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080736/

That movie sucked. It was basically just "Let's show off the Nimitz in the stupidest way possible!" Seriously. No explanation for the time travel, no consequences, no nothing.

all planes during the war had the guns angled in the wings so the streams of lead converged at a point in front of the plane. IIRC standard RAF practice was 200 yards.
It varied a lot - the spitfire's guns converged at about 550 yards earlier in the war, which gradually got shorter as gun camera footage showed that this was too far away for pilots to reliably hit maneuverable enemy fighters.

I think, Calarca, now that I've had some sleep, I must have been thinking of the switch from Vickers to Browning machineguns, though they were still .303"s. Probably had an image of an American Browning of some sort in my head associated with that.

I still think I had something with the 1-2-1 spread of the Spitfire's guns along the wing, though. But as so often it could equally just be a case of RAF operating procedure being forced upon a situation or aircraft without much regard for what will happen after some honourable gent has decided what should happen, I dunno.

My dad flew in Mosquitos and Short Sunderland Flying Boats, so I would have to go with one of them, probably the Mosquito, out of loyalty. I think the Douglas DC-3 would be a good choice as the most useful.

Finest fighter of WWII: The P-51D Mustang.

For everything the OP said but I'd make one correction: The P-51D was capable of mounting rockets, primarily used for ground attack.

It's not a WWII aircraft. And it's ugly.

You sir, fail.

The F-14 is the sexiest aircraft to ever fly. Get your eyes checked.

And F-14>all.

F-14>all.

nah,the eurofighter is easily better.it can outmanever and outgun the f-14 and the USN don't even use anymore.they use the Super Hornet.and if i go to the Air Force i gotta use the F-18C.

I'd liked to of seen the war won without the Dakota transport.

It may not be the best allied aircraft. But it was one of the most vital.

nah,the eurofighter is easily better.it can outmanever and outgun the f-14 and the USN don't even use anymore.they use the Super Hornet.and if i go to the Air Force i gotta use the F-18C.

Did you mean the F-16C? F-18s are used only by the Navy and Marine Corps, not the Air Force, in the USA.

Did you mean the F-16C? F-18s are used only by the Navy and Marine Corps, not the Air Force, in the USA.

look at my location!I live in finland!i meant the finnish air force,not the u.s air force.here the wikipedia article on the f-18.see the non-us service and under it finland:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18

Oh, right. BOOOORING.

If it's just prop aeroplanes, I guess the Il-2 definitely deserves a mention. Most-produced military aircraft ever and the first proper, purpose-built strafing aircraft not just based off a fighter aircraft. The Il-10 was better, but came very late in the war.

Aye. Quite a fine aircraft.

I dont know if this was already addressed but the IL 2 was not the most produced plane, the BF 109 was

FW 190 was a great aircraft, the Zero, P 38. P 47, B29, the Corsair, the devistator, all were great aircraft. Though I must say that the BF-109 might be the best considering that it has more credited kills than any other aircraft, in fact Erich Hartmann scored 352 kills in the plane and there were quite a few others that scored 200 or more. It did have its flaws but its record wins the day I guess.

While te spitfire was a great aircraft its major flaw was that it was not fuel injected, it had a gravity fed carburator, which ment that when the plane pulled negative g's the engine had a nasty tendency to stall

The Fairy Swordfish should be in here too, as a WW1 era plane still being effective in WW2, crippling the Bismarck and the Italian fleet at Taranto, for 2 prime examples. It was a usefull plane in the Battle of the Atlantic, without it, and the escort carrier, the Allies might not have survived, the Swordfish plugged the gap till the better aircraft came up. It served as a torpedo bomber from 1922 untill early 1945.

Or the Vickers Wellington medium bomber

While te spitfire was a great aircraft its major flaw was that it was not fuel injected, it had a gravity fed carburator, which ment that when the plane pulled negative g's the engine had a nasty tendency to stall

That was only the Spitfire Mk.I and the Hurricane Mk.I. Everything from Mk.II on had fuel injection.

You sir, fail.

The F-14 is the sexiest aircraft to ever fly. Get your eyes checked.

And F-14>all.

The F-14 fails. At being good looking to me. Just because I don't this piece of military hardware visually appealing doesn't mean I need my eyes checked. I'm sure it's a very effective aircraft. It just doesn't look good to me.

What about the first aircraft to break 400 mph... the F4U Corsair

I regard the F4U as one of the worst planes of the war beleive it or not, while it excelled in several areas in failed spectacularly at LANDING. The F4U had a hyper active roll rate which made the plane difficult to stabilize and a nasty habit of stalling when the throttle was suddenly closed to slow speed. These two facts combined with the poor visibility below the plane helped it earn the name "Ensign Eliminator" and "most dangerous plane for both enemies and allies alike'

.50 cals were more powerful then the .303s spitfires and hurricanes had.

By 1941 nearly 85% of all British Royal Airforce crafts were equipped with several 20 mm cannons and explosive shells. If anything the British had the best firepower of all the allies. To the US Army Air Corps and Marine Aviation Division adding a couple more M2 machine guns was considered a vast improvement in firepower.

What about the Mosquito?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

I beleive that was a top 5 on my list...

6. P-40 Warhawk
Regarded by the general public as a poor machine the Warhawk was actually a great aircraft for the time of its enception. Though slower than its Japanese counterparts the Warhawk was the only one capable of going turn for turn with fighters like the "Zero" and "Oscar" with a superior service cieling to either one. This Plane was made famous by the American based Flying Tigers and has the honor of being piloted by more ace pilots than any other aircraft.


There's a problem there. The P-40 could NOT turn with a Zero. That was why Chenault trained his Flying Tigers to use the heavier P-40's better dive rate to only make diving attacks, use the gathered speed to run away, climb back up to altitude and do it again. That was the foundation for American tactics against Japanese fighters for the entire war. Americans built heavier, better armoured, and sturdier aircraft. They couldn't turn with the light, unarmoured Zero, so they used that extra weight for wicked dive rates.

Also, another reason why Allied aircraft took longer to shoot down German aircraft than Japanese aircraft is that Japanese aircraft did not have self-sealing fuel tanks. Any good shot through the fuel tanks of a Zero and it went up like Pinto. Germans built aircraft in much the same fashion as the Allied, sturdier, more powerful.

There's a problem there. The P-40 could NOT turn with a Zero. That was why Chenault trained his Flying Tigers to use the heavier P-40's better dive rate to only make diving attacks, use the gathered speed to run away, climb back up to altitude and do it again. That was the foundation for American tactics against Japanese fighters for the entire war. Americans built heavier, better armoured, and sturdier aircraft. They couldn't turn with the light, unarmoured Zero, so they used that extra weight for wicked dive rates.

Also, another reason why Allied aircraft took longer to shoot down German aircraft than Japanese aircraft is that Japanese aircraft did not have self-sealing fuel tanks. Any good shot through the fuel tanks of a Zero and it went up like Pinto. Germans built aircraft in much the same fashion as the Allied, sturdier, more powerful.

Thats just a poor choice of wording on my part; no the P-40 couldn't turn better than the Zero but it could like you said still defeat them handily in a dogfight using the afformentioned tactics. I'm just too lasy to edit the post :p.

While te spitfire was a great aircraft its major flaw was that it was not fuel injected, it had a gravity fed carburator, which ment that when the plane pulled negative g's the engine had a nasty tendency to stall
Eh until the Mk. VII, if I recall correctly.

P-51D Mustand hands down is the winner.

Polikarpov Po-2

There must be a reason if they built more than 40'000 of these babies.

Polikarpov Po-2

There must be a reason if they built more than 40'000 of these babies.

possible reason could be that they were cheap(not saying that they were,just saying a possibility

P-51D Mustand hands down is the winner.

No. F-14>all.

It came 25 years too late, but it is still the best WW2 aircraft.

possible reason could be that they were cheap(not saying that they were,just saying a possibility

Oh come on! They are the coolest! They have no guns! You could fly them and shout "Pew, pew, pew" at the tanks!

It's got to be the Timber Terror, the Wooden Wonder, the one, the only deHavilland Mosquito.
When you absolutely, positively have to carry out photo reconnaissance, pathfinding, night fighting and intruding, transport of high value items including nuclear scientists in the bomb bay, attacks on shipping, ground attack, precision bombing of Nazi rallies or gestapo prisons, or when you want to go and drop 4,000lb of bombs on Berlin twice in one night; accept no subsitutes.

It's got to be the Timber Terror, the Wooden Wonder, the one, the only deHavilland Mosquito.
When you absolutely, positively have to carry out photo reconnaissance, pathfinding, night fighting and intruding, transport of high value items including nuclear scientists in the bomb bay, attacks on shipping, ground attack, precision bombing of Nazi rallies or gestapo prisons, or when you want to go and drop 4,000lb of bombs on Berlin twice in one night; accept no subsitutes.

The Mosquito is pretty cool...and so was the F-14.

No. F-14>all.

It came 25 years too late, but it is still the best WW2 aircraft.

Came 25 years too late. Therefore, not a WWII aircraft. Cease your pointless failing, please.

Where's the Axis Edition thread? I want to vote for the Focke-Wulf 189!

I think Il-2 is a pretty cool guy, eh killing Nazi's and doesn't afraid of anything

Thats just a poor choice of wording on my part; no the P-40 couldn't turn better than the Zero but it could like you said still defeat them handily in a dogfight using the afformentioned tactics. I'm just too lasy to edit the post :p.

I think his point was that their tactics were to avoid dogfighting at all costs, since the Zeke could outmaneuver Allied planes by a significant amount; the only advantage that the P-40 had over the Japanese fighters was higher ceiling and more weight, so they could effectively drop like bricks on the Japanese bomber formations, pour fire on them, and then climb and repeat. Chennault spent most of his early months stressing that his Tigers had to avoid dogfights at all costs, and the volunteers that ignored his lessons didn't come back.

The P-40 is an excellent example of how a weapon in the right hands can be useful even if statistically and in practice it's almost completely outmatched by what the other guy has. But it doesn't belong on the rankings of best fighter for the war.

nah,the eurofighter is easily better.it can outmanever and outgun the f-14 and the USN don't even use anymore.they use the Super Hornet.and if i go to the Air Force i gotta use the F-18C.

Guess who turned down the F/A-18/YF-17 in the first place... The USAF, Go Navy! O and i also wanna use the F/A-18E when i go 2 the Navy. Btw, my grandpa flew in a PBY Catalina, my great uncle flew in a Lancaster, the other one flew in a Halifax

I think Il-2 is a pretty cool guy, eh killing Nazi's and doesn't afraid of anything

eh, il-2 does afraid of german fighters

what is the proper response to that?