A Spitfire which belonged to Old Flying Machine - took this in Enniskillen in the late 1980's. (Pretty sure that is where I took it). If I hunt I am sure I have the serial number somwhere or in some drak recess a back issue of "Flypast" which might give her history. IO should have some more clsoe ups of the same aircraft.
As the americans keep discovering that since 1945 war in the air is won by slower manouverable aircraft..............speed looks great between wars, look it up Korea= Corsairs, Mustangs etc won that one, not the fastest newest jets Vietnam= Sky Raiders, Broncos, Thunderchiefs, F100D etc, not the fastest newest jets Gulf war= Warthog, anything but the fastest newest jet. They realise quick enough, but then go back to building fancy fast jets again, its all written down .............. just my opinion, I'd say the star of Gulf One was the RAF's Tornado Cheers Andy
That's a tricky one. I'm certain of which one is my favourite (the Spifire - what else option is there really ?? BUT had in the 1930s Hitler not vetoed the development of the Me 262 the BoB might have turned out too interesting for comfort.
Hey Mods, could we change the name of this thread to: So What's Everybody's Favourite Fighter Plane? So far, nothing has been presented in this thread other than conjecture and baseless assumptions. We're missing all those fancy numbers that we can throw around and misconstrue and use to make any point we want to, such as horsepower, service ceiling or kills per number of hours flown.
My head says 'Mustang' but my heart says 'Spitfire'. Both were there when they were needed (B of B and the 'lean' into Europe for the Spitfire and long range escort for the Mustang from late '43). But the Spitfire was first. Michael
I'm going with Eric 'Winkle' Brown, famed test pilot and flying legend. I asked him what the best WWII fighter was when I saw him at talk once, and he said the ME262, without a doubt. If the Germans had had it in numbers, they would have won the air war, and possibly the whole thing. Of course, the German engine design made it less reliable than the allied jets, but it was very quick and agile.
If discussion in this thread is to lead anywhere, I believe there are a few issues we need to agree on: 1 We are, I suppose, talking about fighter aircraft ? 2 Is casting the vote meant to be emotional (mostly irrational) or purely fact-based (rational) ? 3 Do we initially have to agree on what air battle or period was most crucial to the final outcome of the war? It will not be fair to compare a design available in 1939 with a 1945 one. 4 What role should be given to armament, radar, homing devices for night capability etc ? 5 What considerations should be given to various models of the same aircraft ? For example, a Spitfire I performs very differently from a Spitfire IX. 6 What role should be given to how the specific aircraft were employed ? Air-to-air combat with adversary fighters (dog-fighting) is fundamentally different from ground strafing or attacking slow-flying unescorted bombers. 7 Considering the aircraft as a fixed entity is not sufficient . Tactics and human factors like motivation also come into play. 8 Presenting “the numbers” will probably not do the trick. In the Battle of Britain, the Hurricanes outnumbered the Spitfires. Not surprisingly, they had more kills. Were they therefore the better aircraft ? 9 One cannot blindly argue whether speed or agility is the decisive factor. It depends on who one is up against. OR , am I being too serious now ? It’s certainly not a game while it’s performed, but might be viewed as a game in retrospect. Lastly, please accept my apology for my hastily thrown statement that Hitler vetoed the development of the Me 262 in the 1930s. It was taken off the top of my at the time dusty and over-heated head. It seems Hitler’s order came in 1940 so there is no way the Me 262 could have interfered with the Battle of Britain.
depends on application Gentlemen. Spits for the short haul took on the Dora 9's without problem though same can be said of the opposite depending on pilot experience. Ta 152H-1 a could of but did not contend with Allied fighters except on 2 occasions other than mixing it up with Soviet fighters. Me 262 in JG 7 was ordered to engage bombers and last resort Allied fighters so really cannot be classed as a fighter versus fighter contender. One only has to look at the operational reports from US 8th AF fighter groups the 262 turning radius was way too wide and this was one of the downfalls besides lacking longer range fuel capacity and this is where the P-51D excelled it was the ultimate long range nightmare to the German Luftwaffe and not a bad ground attack craft as well though the P-47 under the 9th AF did a marvelous job in this regard as a train and MT buster......... E ~
I would love to keep this discussion alive, Ladies AND Gentlemen, but only after a serious attempt on demarcation - ref my last post.
Well, that certainly took the edge out of the discussion. As a comment on the Me 262 I would like to cite Len Deighton in Fighter, p 57: ""Such combats proved beyond doubt that the ability to out-turn, out-dive, or out-loop one's opponent counted for nothing against superior speed. The very-high-speed jets could literally fly rings round their slower opponents, and simply place themselves in a favourable position to shoot them down."
This statement was subscribed by the Po-2 pilots who managed to stop in mid-air while the Würgers zoomed past them, or by that Douglas Skyraider pilot who shot down two MiG 17s, or by the Spit, Tempest and Mustang pilots who tailored tactics to planes and shot down those awsome Me262s out of the skies fuelless in the landing pattern. Tactics are all shades of grey, including violet.
....... Tactics are all shades of grey, including violet. Agreed and applauded. I do find it hard to add anything worthwhile to these "best fighter" discussions, especially if the multi - factor scenario isn't given enough emphasis. My last post was just meant as a single input from a somewhat different angle.
