COMMENTS:
P-51D mustang, outperformed the supermarine spitfire, and I'm sick and tired of you british fucking bastards saying differently, the mustang had a higher top speed, better maneuverablity, longer range, better armanment, and more ability to survive damage during engagements. If you want to prove me wrong, get a REAL web site and prove it, because I'm sick and tired of hearing about how WONDERFUL your old plane was, when in fact the Mustang was the best prop airplane of the prop warplane era, AND WHO CARES WHO MADE THE ENGINE FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!
No because an engine doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to a plane.
The merlin turned a mediocre plane into a very good plane.
It turned a plane with a top speed of 370 mph into a plane that flew in excess of 400 mph and a poor high altitude performer into one of the best high altitude fighters of the war.
The plane was designed to British specifications so it was a British plane.
WHO CARES WHO BUILT THE PLANE FOR CHRISTS SAKE
The P-51 D's top speed was 437 mph.
The spitfire MK XIV flew at 448 mph.
Please could you explain why aces preferred the Spitfire especially the Top 100.
Or are you so ridiculously stupid as to believe you know more about the planes and how good they were than people who actually flew them and especially the real experts.
Yet another quality post from Jappy.
Hes probably just jealous because P 51s are probably still in service in Zimbabwes airforce and are being outperformed by a neighbouring countrys airforce thats still using Spitfire XIVs
i asked for proof and got the usual... imagine that
370 mph
400 mph
437 mph
448 mph
Top 100
These are facts, statistics. PROOF.
Jappy justr face it without the Merlin engine the P51 just wasn't that good.
You think you know anything.
I mean jesus christ.
Yeah an engine
What possible difference could that make to a plane.
I dont mean to interfear with you guys and your argument, BUT theres a digital cable channel called DICOVERY WINGS all day everyday airplanes airplanes aiplanes. My dad watchs it non stop, anyways there was a show last week about the Top ten best planes of all time, and what they did was, they took planes from every country and era and seperated them into sub-catigories, example
WWI they took planes from all the countrys that fought compared them and they said which one was the best.
Just to let you know the P51D Mustang won for WWII, the spitfire, 109, 262, and others were there to but the P51D Mustand won in that era.
And when all eras were done they took the winner from each era and put them in 1 last group and the P51D Mustang won.
It was simply the best fighter of all time, AND I DONT GIVE A SHIT WHO FLEW IT OR WHO MADE IT OR WHATEVER, IT WAS THE BEST FIGHTER PLANE OF ALL TIME.
Because quite simply.
Bombers had to be escourted.
Air Superiority was vital.
Bombers could not acheive air superiority.
Fighters are more versatile eg.
The Mosquito.
More damage to airfields and specific targets vital to the war effort was carried out by fighter-bombers.
It has long been a standing arguement that the bombing of German cities was unnessecery a waste of resources.
This is what heavy bombers such as the Lancaster were principally used for.
So it could be argued the use of Lancasters and heavy boombers was unnessecery.
More time and effort was spent designing and making fighters and subsequently thery were better.
More figters were produced.
and finally more new technology was used in fighters eg the ME262.
Even if a bomber were to win it, it certainly would not be the Lancaster.
The B-29 wins best heavy bomber of the war hands down.
The use of them to nuke Japan you have mentioned was a one off and by that time the US had the pacific war won.
The combinede efforts of USA, Russia and Britain would have seen them smashed.
Also the bombers wouldn't have even been in range to bomb Japan had the US not engaged in their island hopping exploits. The use of Navy fighters was a huge advantage in allowing them to accomplish this.
Without a merlin engine the P51 just wasn't that good.
I had a reputation for being a fast plane, a good high altitude plane and a great interceptor without the merlin engine it was none of these.
It had a reputation
DAMN IT
Yes England_Patriot the US had the war one, but please dont tell me that your one of those bitches that think we shouldnt have nuked Japan. It was soooo much better that we nuked em because the US estimated 1 million casualties to invade Japan....thank god we didnt invade.
The one million casualty is bullshit.
No fucking way would that have been the death toll.
But it defintely would have been more than the Japanese causalties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki not to mention I don't give a shit what happened to them.
They starved and tortured thousands of allied soldiers and sailors. Starved them. Enforced labour and killed millions of Chinese.
Why the fuck would I care.
Hey man I heard 1 million casusalties, it would have been a pain in the ass to fight the japs on there homeland, as the proved on the Pacific islands, they fight to the last man, but im glad we nuked the japs. :}
Yeah I know it is the official estimate that wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at the figure.
Sorry it probably didn't seem like it.
who the fuck cares that was years ago
But back to the argumeant,
Overall the P51D Mustang was the best fighter of WWII. NOW ON THE OTHER HAND ''WHAT WAS THE BEST BOMBER OF WWII?''
I still disagree but the best bomber hands down as I have already said is the B-29
My grandfather flew both during WWII, the supermarine and P-51. His view on the debate is that, while each plane was excellent, the P-51 was a huge step up based on overall performance and range. I don't claim to know anything about the planes myself, just that I'm talking to him about it right now. He also says that there were variants of the mustang, that perhaps people are thinking of the earlier mustang, because the later models ran circles around anything else in the European theater, except for the jet, whatever that means.
yeah but what model of spitfire did he fly and what model of P51.
Also without that merlin engine the P51 would have got its ass anihilated in a battle with a spitfire.
I mean if he flew an early model spitfire and a later model P51 thats not really fair is it.
There's also still the ace factor.
Which is the majority of aces especially the Top 100 preferred the spitfire as they claimed it was a better dogfighter.
I would imagine these guys knew more about them than anybody and certainly more than anyone on this site.
To Irish-Scandinavian's last comment, FUCK THE JAP ZERO, there nickname is ''paper kite'' yeah they were good planes but once they got hit BURN BABY BURN!!!
Just a little something else that some war veterans might think is funny. My grandfather {who past away a year ago, god bless his heart} he had to be the BIGGEST Jap hater of ALL TIME, it was sooo hilarious, what he did was, he had a pretty bad hearing hearing problem and each time he would see a Jap he would say somethin like
''Goddamn Jap''
''Fuckin Nip''
and what was sooo funny is, he thinks that hes muttering it under his breath, but hes FUCKIN YELLING!!! It was sooo damn funny ill never forget that...
I asked him why he hated them so much one time, and this was like the first time i met him, and he simply said
''I was at Pearl Harbor''
I totally agree that they were VERY manuverable, BUT once they got shot, BURN BABY BURN!!! The Zero's nickname was ''paper kite''
One more thing FUCK THE FRENCH!!
Every aircraft the Americans had AZZ Holes!
In my opinion the best model aircraft produced during WWII was the P-38 Lightning. I say this for a number of reasons.
1. Had one of the longest pruduction runs of any plane in the war. Was produced before the war, during and after.
2. Americas top ace in WWII flew one.
3. One of the most versitile planes of the war. Had massive firepower. Could be converted for bombing, strafing, and intercepting.
3. Very durable. Had twin engines so the loss of one was not enough to bring it down. And could take a lot of damage before being shot down.
In conclusion Dubbed "Der Gabelschwanz Teuful" (The Fork-tailed Devil), the P-38 Lightening, by wars end, could fly higher, faster, farther, and carry more of a payload than any other fighter.It was the most successful USAAF fighter in the Pacific Theater for good reason.If you didn't know, it was also used in the famous mission that intercepted and shot down Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. The P-38 was more of an asset to America's forces in WWII than any other single model fighter.
Very good point.
hahahhaha hahahaha hahahaha ahhahaha hahahaha!!!
this is a stupid ballot it's just too bloody obvious, its the spitfire and don't let any fuking yanks tell you otherwise
also without the spitfires in the battle of britain there might not have been a war left for the yanks to fight
Some of you people.
P-51 Mustang, first to whoever said I don't care about the engine, well news for you the engine of a fighter plane is the plane!
The mustang, had both british and american engines! But the mustang IS a british designed plane - sorry guys, work on improving the spitfire gave birth to the mustang.
The bombers won the europeon war, without the B-17, Germany would never have lost is industrial might.
The best fighter of WW2 was the BF109, the only reason it lost out was lack of experianced pilots! It could pull negative g's which most other fighters couldn't, if chased it dived INVERTED, to follow (spitfighters included) was certain doom.
B-29 Enola Gay
B-29 Enola Gay
The Zero was faster than anything else. The Japanese just didn't have enough good pilots.
Can we agree to be civilized here and calm down?
OK. First, you'd have to specify WHICH spitfire, because there were 24 distinct models, the 24th weighing almost twice as much as the first. And performance varied between those 24 models almost as much as weight. The most common Spitfire, the Mark 9, was never the equal of the P-51 or for that matter the FW-190. In general the Spit was excellent but never did live up to its legendary mystique. Its fatal flaw was its short range. About an hour in the air and it's running on fumes. The plane that actually saved Britain's ass was the Hawker Hurricane, outnumbered the Spit 2 to 1, but the Hawker never got romanticized because unlike Spitfire, it was old and ugly.
And speed itself is of very secondary importance. If speed were all, the best plane would be the ME-262. At least 150 MPH faster than P-51, but with nothing else going for it, so it
was a non-issue.
All that said, the best all-around fighter was the p-51, AND WHO GIVES A SHIT WHERE ITS ENGINE WAS MADE!
The best fighter of WW2 was the BF109, the only reason it lost out was lack of experianced pilots! It could pull negative g's which most other fighters couldn't, if chased it dived INVERTED, to follow (spitfighters included) was certain doom.
Don't think so! German pilots had battle experience in the spanish campaign 1st, and during the battle of Britain spitfires and Hurricains were out numbered 3 to 1 or more and and the Germans still lost more aircraft in the Battle. Wasn't it Adolf Galland a German fighter ace who asked Goering to give him a squadron of Spitfires, i rest my case.
AND WHO GIVES A SHIT WHERE ITS ENGINE WAS MADE!
Stick the old Allison engine back in the P51 and than lets see you're performance ratio's! of course the plane was only what it was because of the Engine, go figure.
As for the ME-262c it came into the war to late to turn the air war, Britain also had a jet fighter in 1944 the Gloster Meteor again to late to make an impact.
As well as the Merlin!it's funny how we had to give the USA that jet engine technology as well!!!!
by isay on Mon Oct 11, 04 11:47am
[+]
No thanks to my country.. erm check you're facts guest-dbd9e, the meteor 1st flew in 1941. Americas 1st jet powerd plane was the XP-59A and was powered by the first American jet engine, the General Electric I-A, which was based on the W2B design of British jet pioneer Frank Whittle. We gave the russians the same jet technology at the same time. All British and American jet engines where based on the design by Frank Whittle.
And you also say the Meteor never saw combat! well yes it did in 1944 shooting down V1's and in 1945 over Germany.
by isay on Wed Oct 13, 04 9:06am
[+]
Check YOUR facts, Isay. True, the F-80 was not the first american jet; when did guest say it was? He didn't. The F-80's engine was designed and built by Allison division of General Motors, and was unrelated to any British design. The Meteor first flew on 5 March 1943; both you and guest were off, but he was closer. And no, Meteor never saw combat. It never "shot down" a V-1 although at least once it DID, by gently bumping a V-1, knock it onto a harmless trajectory. That, and Meteor did a few strafing runs, but never engaged an enemy aircraft, and thus never saw combat if the word has any meaning. Like the XP-59, Meteor was already obsolete the first day it flew. It's all well and good, Isay, for you to take pride in what your countrymen did, but not in what they DIDN'T do.
Ok i stand corrected it did fly in 1943, it was the Gloster Whittle g40 that flew in 1940 but the meteor was the only allied jet fighter in ww2 and did see active combat. Meteor pilot, Flying Officer J. Roger shot a V1 down on the 4 August 1944, earlier that day someone did tip one with his wing because the cannons jammed.
You are saying the Meteor was obsolete the same day it 1st flew! like a lot of aircraft they go through varient stages as did the Meteor look at the other countries it was sold to after ww2 with faster engines.
As regard to the Allison built turbo jet you are dead wrong for god sake the gas turbine engine has not changed much to how it works since Frank Whittle patented it, even modern day jet engines work on the same principle, so yes we did do! except it.
by isay on Wed Oct 13, 04 7:24pm
[+]
Isay, you were right and I was wrong about whether a Meteor ever shot down a V-1. One did, once. My statement stands: Meteor never saw combat. As we know, V-1 was unmanned and robotic; By definition, there is no combat where's there's only one combatant.
And also my staement about Meteor's being obsolete when first flown, as was the XP-59.
It's resonable to expect a jet to at least outperform piston-engine A/C, and Meteor didn't. Its performance was about the same as P-51 and far inferior to its contemporary jets, F-80 and ME-262.
If we're to play your game I will point out that a jet airplane was built and flown by Henri Coanda of Romania in 1910. It was extremely crude, to be sure, but every principle of the modern day jet can be seen in it. So we owe it all to Romania, if I were to use your logic...but I won't. As before, Isay, we're both about half-right. Whittle designed the first jet engine but Allison Division, starting with only blank paper, designed and built the first jet engine that WORKED - defined here as: outperformed piston engines, with at least resonable reliability. And without those two things, there's no point to a jet's even existing.
I have always recognized Sir Frank Whittle as a brilliant man. You should recognize that he was not the ONLY brilliant man.
You say that Allison built the 1st jet engine that worked is not true Frank whittles design worked which is what Allison based the one they made on. The gas turbine or turbo jet is Frank whittles design which he applied for a patent in 1930, Gereral Electric received a prototype of that gas turbine in 1942.
Henri Coanda's jet was a thermojet, not a gas turbine which is Frank Whittles design and has not changed to this day, there is the difference to types of jet power it's just thrust out of the back end.
by isay on Thu Oct 14, 04 10:47am
[+]
Fine, old fellow. If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead.
No shame in admitting anything and here is some infor for you from a reliable source.. read and take note.
The concept for the P-80 Shooting Star originated in 1943 when the United States requested that Lockheed design a fighter around the De Havilland turbojet engine.
I rest my case!
by isay on Thu Oct 14, 04 11:25am
[+]
And they didn't. Design around the Dehavilland, that is. I rest mine.
The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star was the first operational jet fighter used by the United States Army Air Force. The first USAAF jet aircraft was the P-59 Airacomet.
Design work began in 1943 with the design being built around a British de Havilland H1-B turbojet. these became unavailable, so they used the J33 engine
The J33 turbojet is a direct descendant of the original British Whittle jet engine developed in the 1940s. The J33 was originally designed by General Electric for use in the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. In late 1945 the Allison Division of General Motors took over the development and production of the J33.
very Irrefutable evidence saying it comes from good sources like General electric themselves.
by isay on Fri Oct 15, 04 12:52am
[+]
Neal_Anderthal
You said the MKIX was never the equal of the FW190, yes, yes it was and it was superior and this opinion is shared by the guy who owns that warbird site which is probably the best WW2 aircraft website about and specify which model of the P-51 it wasn't as good as, because there were better versions of the spitfire as well, I'm also gonna point out that the majority of aces prefered the spitfire as it was a better dogfighter, it had a better armament, better maneuverability and better handling, the only reason why P-51s had that range was because of drop tanks, anyone can put a droptank on a plane and a lot of spitfires had better range than many believe, one model had 1,300 miles and the reconnaisance versions over 2,000 and it had more effect on the war.
you also chatted some bollocks about the hurricane saving us, the Battle of Britain was about air supremecy hence fighters, the hurricanes were used against bombers, the spitfires were used against the ME109s, it didn't matter if zero bombers were shot down, as long as the spitfires continued shooting down ME109s
and why not compare the tempest against the P-51D and declare which is better on specs.
I think the priority for the RAF was to get the bombers 1st as they were trying to destroy the airfields and Radar installations. The Germans were always trying to lure our fighers away from the bombers.
by isay on Wed Oct 20, 04 8:24pm
[+]
E_P, many of the "spitfires" seen winning the aerial dogfights were in fact hurricaines. many people could not distinguish between the two, and as the spitfire was the more glamarous, it took much of the credit away from the humble hurricaine.
I actually have the figures here
Spitfire - 282 Bf109s
Hurricane - 222 Bf109's
Which proves the Spitfires shot down more fighters despite less of them being avilable and were more concentrated on fighter kills than the Hurricane was.
But don't get me wrong at all, I like all the Hawker WW2 planes, they did shoot down more bombers and Bf110's which I'm sure you'll know show's they were more concentrated on attacking bomber formations, it's just the spitfire will always be my favourite one and that one I will defend the most.
and the role in which I have the most respect for the Hurricane is the ground attack role it was used for, particularly in North Africa.
Not that I give much credit to the Battle of Britain saving us anyway, the chances of a successful invasion even if the Luftwaffe had "won" are very small, I've gone over this many times.
fair enough, i see you know your shit. i just feel you were rather romanticising the role of the Spitfire.
|
