Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
marat,jean       7/7/2013 10:05:32 AM

What that really means...

The Americans were unimpressed with the Halford and frankly the Whittle. The British likewise were unimpressed with American aerodynamacists (They were wrong of course...) and both were derided by the Germans.

In fact, what people forget when we have these discussions about who did what, is that nationalism clouds the actual aeronautical period history. The British were tyros when it came to airframes Their T-series fighters prove this. (The Germans too. The Italians and the Japanese could have taught everyone, except the Americans something about that aspect of aircraft design.). The Americans were not too keen when it came to engines, (a British strength), the Germans were totally inept when it came to execution of their advanced concepts as practical aircraft. (What lunatic thought the Mk 108 cannon was a smart idea for the Me-262?).

When Jack Northrop and the Horton brothers write the same sheet music on swept wings and Westinghouse and Wiggin Alloys work parallel tracks, it becomes hard to separate who did what.  

 
Food for thought.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/7/2013 10:29:33 AM
  The Halford melted. It didn't blow up. That is why the engine change to the J-33s (Derwents).      
 
actually I looked this up and you are completely wrong, firstly it was always intended to GE engines - originally the I-16 but that was a washout so it was intended to use the I40 (later named the J33) but that was unavailable so they used the Halford, however the engine once mounted in the airframe sucked the inlet ducts (part of the plane) and ingested them wrecking the impeller I would hardly call that melting,
 
The US actually asked for more Halfords but the UK couldn't supply them, so they had to wait for their own version to be sorted
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/7/2013 10:35:33 AM
by Sterling Michael Pavelec
 
as for Lockheed claiming it wasn't their fault, do you believe this, remember Lockheed didn't have a very good reputation for truth in the 40s and 50s
 
if you look at the facts, the inlet manifolds collapsed, no Lockheed says this was not them, but who built them? if someone throws a brick though your window is it the fault of the window?
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/8/2013 8:32:21 AM

 
That would be the T-33, and the F-94 at about the same time.
 
You can quite truly claim that the Lockheed salesmen were liars (F-104)), but Kelly Johnson's product (P-80 evolved designs) still fly, some of them still in combat. (Bolivia of all places.)
 
What British plane can claim this? (Jaguar? Gnat?)
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/8/2013 8:37:51 AM

The
Jet Race And The Second World War

by Sterling Michael Pavelec

 

as for Lockheed claiming it wasn't their fault, do you believe this, remember Lockheed didn't have a very good reputation for truth in the 40s and 50s

 

if you look at the facts, the inlet manifolds collapsed, no Lockheed says this was not them, but who built them? if someone throws a brick though your window is it the fault of the window?

 

If the specifications called for the glass to be shatterproof, or if the the glass supplier did not meet specs? 

 

I will need to research this. By the way, as the F-9 was the ultimate derivative of the Gloster Meteror with different engines and rationalized airframe, you do know what it's P-80 equivalent was?

 

That would be the T-33, and the F-94 at about the same time.

 

You can quite truly claim that the Lockheed salesmen were liars (F-104), but Kelly Johnson's product (P-80 evolved designs) still fly, some of them still in combat. (Bolivia of all places.)

 
What British plane can claim this? (Jaguar? Gnat?)

 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/8/2013 9:30:19 AM
if you look at the facts, the inlet manifolds collapsed, no Lockheed says this was not them, but who built them? if someone throws a brick though your window is it the fault of the window? 

If the specifications called for the glass to be shatterproof, or if the the glass supplier did not meet specs?

   
are you sugesting that the engine shold have been built to withstand the induction of its intakes? what all of them or just a proportion, or should it have been built to withstand the whole nose being inducted? I think this a trying to believe Lockheed rather than a true assesment of facts 
I will need to research this. By the way, as the F-9 was the ultimate derivative of the Gloster Meteror with different engines and rationalized airframe, you do know what it's P-80 equivalent was?   

That would be the T-33, and the F-94 at about the same time.

 
Probably as the UK was pretty bankrupt by then it did hold onto its aircraft longer than it should
You can quite truly claim that the Lockheed salesmen were liars (F-104), but Kelly Johnson's product (P-80 evolved designs) still fly, some of them still in combat. (Bolivia of all places.)
 
Lebanon Still flys Hunters, it is also of note that
Airborne Tactical Advantage Company  operates Mk.58 Hunters for tactical air and adversary training of U.S. military fighter crews
 
 Not bad for a rubbish fighter is it
 
ps - The Hunter was not designed as a bomber and orginially didnt carry bombs or rockets these were added to later marks
 
What British plane can claim this? (Jaguar? Gnat?)
 
Both Jags and Gnats still fly as does the Harrier (protype first flew in 1960)
oh and I believe there are a few Camberra's (or martin B57) flying and certainly they were in service with quite a few countries upto 5 years ago
 
pps - Sidney Cam was involved the design of the Harrier
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/8/2013 12:09:54 PM

have to disagree strongly that the Lansen was a superior fighter, a couple of thing stand out, first the Hunter was designed as an interceptor/air superiority fighter NOT a bomber as you claim
But the bottom line is that most think the Hunter was probably the best transsonic fighter built

F-100, Super Saber? F-86? Mig-15? At what point does the number built count toward greatness?
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/8/2013 12:12:53 PM

are you sugesting that the engine should have been built to withstand the induction of its intakes? what all of them or just a proportion, or should it have been built to withstand the whole nose being inducted? I think this a trying to believe Lockheed rather than a true assessment of facts.


It should be noted that ingestion (that sucking action that wrecked more than a few British test stand engines at the time.) was a danger that the de Havilland crowd ran into themselves, so let's not blame Lockheed for being surprised. De Havilland could have warned them... They had the Halford first.


Lebanon Still flys Hunters,


Four (grounded, no parts). Not twenty (against insurrectos).


it is also of note that

Airborne Tactical Advantage Company  operates Mk.58 Hunters for tactical air and adversary training of U.S. military fighter crews

Not the ones the Swiss retired I hope? Those damned things had wing fatigue issues!

 Not bad for a rubbish fighter is it.

For an air frame rated as airworthy for 2500 hours use and with an in air endurance on internal fuel of one and a half hours? That marks it as about as good as a Mig. Draw your own conclusions.

How many were shot down?

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/hunter/history.php

ps - The Hunter was not designed as a bomber and orginially didnt carry bombs or rockets these were added to later marks

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/hunter/history.php

And paid for it, dearly.

 
 
Now about Sydney Camm and the Harrier.
 
The first Kestrels CRASHED. Paris air show (1963). All Camm contributed was stubborness. RAF Farnborough sorted the plane out.
 
And you will see that Belgium ditched their dog Hunters for Starfighters in a big hurry?
 
The Hunter isn't the plane the British claim.
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/8/2013 12:15:04 PM
Ah, the ignorant comments resume?

have to disagree strongly that the Lansen was a superior fighter, a couple of thing stand out, first the Hunter was designed as an interceptor/air superiority fighter NOT a bomber as you claim

But the bottom line is that most think the Hunter was probably the best transsonic fighter built

F-100, Super Saber? F-86? Mig-15? At what point does the number built count toward greatness?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    What is ignorant about asking any question?   7/8/2013 1:36:28 PM

When other here state the Meteor could out turn this or that other AC, how are they defining "Out turn"? By radius of turn, degrees per second, or the reciprocal of speed times degrees per second?
I'd bet good money that neither the Meteor or Me-262 could out turn any single engine Prop/recip fighter of WW-II.

 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics