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
Belisarius1234    Crap evidence from Shooter.    2/22/2013 3:03:52 PM
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Repeat    2/22/2013 3:06:07 PM
Citation inserted.






Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Repeat    2/22/2013 3:08:15 PM
Citation inserted.




Quote    Reply

Reactive       2/22/2013 3:50:18 PM
Er.. So now the URL thing has been changed you just need to paste the URL into the text editor (no html needed)..
At least in theory : )
And to see if it works without the http part
Quote    Reply

Reactive       2/22/2013 3:50:46 PM
Well that's put paid to that idea : *  (  
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       2/22/2013 3:51:14 PM

Er.. So now the URL thing has been changed you just need to paste the URL into the text editor (no html needed)..



At least in theory : )


And to see if it works without the http part

Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 5:46:08 PM
Therefore, for the USAAF to have dropped more bombs tonnage and done so in less time, the American bombers must have flown more missions. no disagreement!
Sources for this bogus claim? Exactly how many day light missions did the RAF fly?
carry on like that an you will go to bed with no supper (and will revoke your net access for 2 days)

Still failed to answer the question.
so? cant you do it yourself you studiously ignore all posts that disagree so why should i bother?

YES! Exactly! How many 1,000 plane raids did they do in 1944 when the Luftwaffe was still putting up fighter deffences?
how many 1000 planes raids did the USAAF do in 42?
None. But I return to two simple facts, the RAF-BC took more casualties while it flew less missions and in a less dangerous environment!
actually no it was a more dangerous enviroment, bombing the ruhr was a lot more dangerous than an airfeild in vichy
But exactly how many sorties did the fly in the day light that were defended by the Luftwaffe, Vs how many at night? RIGHT! 150,000 sorties at night and <6000 in broad day light! This is sachasm, in case you did not notice.
rearly i would have never have guessed but then again your posts are so inaccurate it would be difficult to tell

this would seem to put the lie to your words Not at all! You can take anything out of context, but it does not change the fact that the vast majority of RAF BC sorties were flown at night!
Nothing will change it as it was true, the point was originally that the USAAF suffered heavier casulaties when they attacked the SAME target as the RAF, the reason why the USAAF suffer less overall losses was that they attacked the difficult targets far less than the RAF
This is the part that needs to be broken down in to two parts. Yes the USAAF flew in more dangerous conditions and part B, is the point that RAF-BC attacked at night and thus suffered fewer casualties.
so the USAAF flew in more dangerous conditions despite attacking easier targets well who knew  ! maybe it was decided that if they attacked the difficult ones the B17 would have suffered even greator losses
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 5:59:16 PM
The corkscrew is a "positive Gmaneuverand can to a greater or lesserdegree can be performed by any plane that can fly! It like the "Barrel Roll" is one of those things that sounds great, but in reality was no big thing! try actually lookin up what a corkscrew manoeuvre was before making such a silly comment

  I have several times. At no time, at least according to your links, is a positive G maneuver. Again, the bomber should loose about 500 feet, at least according to the second of your links. Not all that much and have gained an airspeed of 250 MPH. Again according to your chart in the link" target="_blank">" target="_blank">">" lanc_corkscrew.htm?="" com="" >>.="" 20href="_blank" %3ca%="" militaryforums="" >> href="" target="_blank">" target="_blank">" target="_blank">
and find a single source that claims a b17 could perform such a manoeuvre (dont correct a correctly spelt word its bad enough you correct me when you are even worse than iam)
    as the B17 had a notoriously weak backbone (even the G model Shooter) A link to this BS? and could overstress it even using trim tabs in a dive, A link to this BS too?
oh another provide link, well i will when you provide a link to
a, a b17 carrying 4x2000lbs internally
b, a b17 carrying a 4000lbs internally
c, a b17 carrying 34 500lbs internally
a mosquito not being able to bomb Berlin
et cetera et cetera
 I doubt anyone ever tried such a
manoeuvre A guy named "Buzzy" Olsen barrel rolled a B-47!      
oh a b47 remind me which varent of a B17 was that?, I have a friend who rolled a gypsy Moth which is about as relavent                
in a b17 or i they did probleby didnt survive the experiance
This last is not worth one word in reply!
oh no answer to that then
See this link to proove that a B-17 was a bunch tougher than most if not all other bombers!" target="_blank">" target="_blank">">" target="_blank">" target="_blank">
  Note the B-17 in the third or fourth row down with a -17 that survived a Mid air collision! Never heard of a Lanc performing that maneuver! RTB after a Mid-Air! Right!

no you wouldnt as you dont look similar reports of lancasters and b24 and halifaxs etc can be found if you look

Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 6:10:01 PM
The RAF heavy bomber&O5533;s standard evasive maneuver enabled it to continue on
course while presenting an attacking fighter with an extremely difficult target.
This maneuver is performed any time the attack is from the rear to middle of the
craft. The diagram at Figure 1. shows the maneuver following a port fighter
1. The pilot (originally cruising at 200-225 mph) opens his throttle and
banks at 45 degrees to make a diving turn to port (because the enemy aircraft is
on the port

reverse the maneuver if enemy is on starboard.); descending
through 1,000 ft in six seconds, the bomber reaches a speed of nearly 300 mph.
After the 1,000 ft descent, the pilot pulls the aircraft into a climb, still
turning to port.
The other link states 500' desent (other sights quote unto 5000' and  in excess of 350 mph )
and 250 MPH speed at the bottom. So the only rational conclusions that can be drawn from the differances between the two charts are that they increased the specs later in the war after they had more experiance, or they decreased the specs after that same experiance because of structual failures?
ok find me a source of "structual failour of a Lanc airframe as I can provide 5  B17 for each one you do, and that it was a basis for an action not set in stone
In either case those specs were easy to meet in any B-17.
not according to boeing who warn that at speeds of over 250mph "vigerous" use of controls will over stress the frame
yeah right, RAF instructions were NOT to attempt the manoeuver in a b17 as it would seriously over stress the airframe
yeah as simple as a barrel roll my arse
I never said it was as simple, just that they were both "Positive G Maneuvers"! Planes like that, transports and bombers are all greatly differential stressed with considerably more positive G capasity than negitive G Capasity.
source that the lanc suffered in negative G
the Lanc has been recorded as pulling 9G in such a manoeuvre not bad for a 4 engined heavy
Since RAF planes were not equipped with G Meters back then, how do we know this? 
provide a link that NO Lancaster ever pulled 9 G

Note that Spitfires did not have G meters during the BoB. I do not know whether they got them later.
No they were an un nesscessary weight, not something you want in a fighter(oh I forgot you like adding unneccessary weight to fighters)
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    Info for whats it worth   2/22/2013 7:09:52 PM
I ran into the ex manager in the Lanc plant (ran is a bit strong, i went to his local and waited for him) and asked about the escape hatch, now his view (and its one mans view and hearsay only) is that AVRO tested the escape hatch and found that an increase of 2" all round had no real noticeable differnce on ability to escape (this was ground testing) and after the escape hatch was increased late in the war thier was NO measurable increase in crew survivalibilit, his oppinion for what its worth, is that it was the internal layout which was the problem not the escape hatches
he was a wonderful source of tails about the lanc, and supprisingly mossies as his brother flew them ( how about dropping 4000lbs at 250feet into railway tunnels)
or about the Lanc test pilot who always rolled and looped a lanc before signing off on it
and all for a few beers
Quote    Reply