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
45-Shooter       2/22/2013 7:33:43 PM

Er.. So now the URL thing has been changed you just need to paste the URL into the text editor (no html needed).. http://www.iloveturtles.com ;" target="_blank">http://www.iloveturtles.com ;;
So how does a link to a web site about how much the owner loves turtles help this debate?
 
At least in theory : )
Hellofa Theory!
 
And to see if it works without the http part
http://www.pigeonbasics.com/fanciers>;   R " target="_blank">>>;
And Pigeons apply how? It's also broke?
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 7:44:45 PM
the actually seem more realvent than your links
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/22/2013 8:01:23 PM


    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)
   
a, a b17 carrying 4x2000lbs internally
 
b, a b17 carrying a 4000lbs internally
  
c, a b17 carrying 34 500lbs internally

d, a mosquito not being able to bomb Berlin
Why do you think a Mossy could not bomb Berlin? I never ever made such a claim!
 
 I doubt anyone ever tried such a

maneuvre 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                
But it IS exactly as realivant because any plane that can make a positive G maneuver can do the maneuver described in the various links to the so called "Corkscrew" maneuver!
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!
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=b-17+damage+photos&qpvt=b-17+damage+photos&FORM=IGRE" target="_blank">http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=b-17+damage+photos&qpvt=b-17+damage+photos&FORM=IGRE
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 sim
ilar reports of lancasters and b24 and halifaxs etc can be found if you look
Well I did look and could not find any refferance to any Lancaster RTB after a Mid-Air Collision! So if you know of something please post it for the rest of us.
 https://www.google.com/search?q=damaged+avro+lancaster+images">https://www.google.com/search?q=damaged+avro+lancaster+images
Note that out of more than 870 images viewed, none showed any Lancaster with damage from a Mid-Air Colision! Not a One! There were by the way less than ten that showed any damage at all!
   


So having posted the search link and failing to find a single pic of any Lanc that RTB'd after a Mid-Air, I now ask for you to use your obviously much more skilled Google-foo!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/22/2013 8:14:22 PM

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
  Like the link below to the 92 early B-17s prior to the E Model? So the first 92 B-17 had a weak tail/aft fuselage, but what about the 12,600 that did not have a weak tail?
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
Like the 92 early B-17s prior to the E Model? So the first 92 B-17 had a weak tail/aft fuselage, but what about the 12,600 that did not have a weak tail?



yeah right, RAF instructions were NOT to attempt the manoeuver in a b17 as it would seriously over stress the airframe
    See above!


yeah as simple as a barrel roll my arse
Well yes! No part of any of these maneuvers of what ever magnatude are such that they can not perform that same maneuver in any of the more than 12,600 late model B-17s!
 
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 
All aircraft suffered from excessive Negative G loads! Name any plane from that time that did not.
 
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
Provide a link to the fact that any Lanc had a G Meter! 
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)
  Given that most other AFs did install G Meters in their fighters, I wonder why the RAF did not? Since the Germans put them in most if not all of their fighters and the Me-109 and Fw-190 both shot down more planes than any two allied types, I would be forced to think that there was at least something in it!
 

That is right. The Fw-190 and Me-109 both shot down more Enemy AC than any two allied fighter types! PS, the Spitfire was not one of the top two.

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/23/2013 12:19:54 PM
    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)
   
a, a b17 carrying 4x2000lbs internally
 
b, a b17 carrying a 4000lbs internally
 
c, a b17 carrying 34 500lbs internally

d, a mosquito not being able to bomb Berlin
Why do you think a Mossy could not bomb Berlin? I never ever made such a claim!
 
you claimed it had a 550ish mile range and from the Mosquito bases to germany via the routes used is more than this so either yorur range claim is wrong or they didnt do it, and i know what my money is on
I doubt anyone ever tried such a

            maneuvre 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                
But it IS exactly as realivant because any plane that can make a positive G maneuver can do the maneuver described in the various links to the so called "Corkscrew" maneuver!
 
not if it overstressed the airframe which it would have in  a B17 someoe managed to barrel roll a Boeing 747 which is even more impressive but you wouldnt want to corkscrew one
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!
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
Well I did look and could not find any refferance to any Lancaster RTB after a Mid-Air Collision! So if you know of something please post it for the rest of us.
oh so no pic and you think it didnt happen well I will wait until you provide a pic of B17 with a 4000lbs internal before I even bother with this
  
Note that out of more than 870 images viewed, none showed any Lancaster with damage from a Mid-Air Colision! Not a One! There were by the way less than ten that showed any damage at all!
 
you have been given a reason why there are less pictures of damaged lanc so I am not going to bother repeating it, however it took me 5 minutes to find a report of a lanc surviving a midair along with a wellington a halifax and a b25 yet you cannot yet you claim to be an expert
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Borrowed a lead off of you, OBNW.   2/23/2013 1:53:09 PM
 
I'm going to argue that since the gunners couldn't see NJs more than 300 meters away on close approach at night. (British night fighter Mosquitoes exercised against Lancasters and were able to sidle up to the bombers unnoticed.) that operational research indicated that camouflage, speed, and maneuver was the only effective night bomber defense.
 
So, obviously if that is the case, then the nose guns were unneeded drag, on the Lancaster. The dorsal guns were also a drag factor.
 
I would have liked a set of fuel efficient radial ICE engines, that streamlined nose, and a remote tail turret, for the bomber, and a co-pilot as well.    
 
Unlike, Bennett, I can see the need for a bomber that can drop a seven tonne bomb-walk pattern into a target. The tech at the time was barely able to make free-fall Heinenman bombs work. The BAT, AZON and it's ilk were expensive and channel steer restrictive for command capture guidance.
 
Practical simple quick fixes were the Lancaster order of the day, if the people were smart enough.
 
Even a 0.303 quad tail turret with an entry-exit route through the gun mantlet piece, would have been preferable to the FN-20-4. 
 
So,even if a Dyson Special couldn't work, the B II with proper Bristol Pegs and a late model Rose turret could   
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/23/2013 4:27:23 PM
one problem would be that the "experts" were saying that the guns were required and that they played an important defensive role and just which experts do you listen too(being without the advantage of  hindsight) you would tend to listen to those that had a history of being right, at this time that would be those that had said day bombing was too dangerous and night bombing was the way to go, unfortunately they were the ones saying that guns were necessary
 
not so sure about walking a bomb pattern, as from the bombing altitude they were using  the last bomb would have left the bomber ages before the first had landed
 
whilst deleting the nose turret could be done - see halifax,  the dorsal must have been regarded as important as not only did the same haifax get an upgrade from a 2x 303 dorsal to a 4x303 dorsal but the Lincoln was intended (and received post war) to have 2x30mm in the dorsal location
 
the big problem is that hindsight only works backwards
 
as for the Radial the merlin seemed to do a good job in the Lanc and lincoln and the griffon worked in the shackleton until the 70s
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/23/2013 4:43:11 PM
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
  Like the link below to the 92 early B-17s prior to the E Model? So the first 92 B-17 had a weak tail/aft fuselage, but what about the 12,600 that did not have a weak tail?
In either case those specs were easy to meet in any B-17.
actually I was refering to the F/G models which were vastly better than the E were still a major weakness
 

not according to boeing who warn that at speeds of over 250mph "vigerous" use of controls will over stress the frame
Like the 92 early B-17s prior to the E Model? So the first 92 B-17 had a weak tail/aft fuselage, but what about the 12,600 that did not have a weak tail?
what 12600? is this a secret H model that they secretly made another 12600 of? as the f/G models all had the rear fuselarge (notice fuselarge not tail)
yeah right, RAF instructions were NOT to attempt the manoeuver in a b17 as it would seriously over stress the airframe
    See above!
see your wrong statement above
 
yeah as simple as a barrel roll my arse
Well yes! No part of any of these maneuvers of what ever magnatude are such that they can not perform that same maneuver in any of the more than 12,600 late model B-17s!
as stated the RAF issued strict instructions to pilots on the G models used as electronic warfare brids during night raids late in the war, not to perform corkscrew manueovres as it overstressed the frames (and these were lightly loaded with no bombs reduced guns (no waist, nose and no ball) but carried extra crew for elint and countermeasures) as the raf didnt operate E models in this role and we only recieved D E and F/G it can be assued that it was f/g used, as to which I think its irrelavent as the only difference was the nose turret on the G, boeing even used the same designation for both
 
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
All aircraft suffered from excessive Negative G loads! Name any plane from that time that did not.
I must stop assuming that you have enough sense to realise we are talking degrees, all aircraft of any era have problems with EXESSIVE G loads both positive and negative so it makes your whole sentence just stupid
 
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
Provide a link to the fact that any Lanc had a G Meter!
post a link that says i said it did (see how you like it)
 
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)
  Given that most other AFs did install G Meters in their fighters, I wonder why the RAF did not? Since the Germans put them in most if not all of their fighters and the Me-109 and Fw-190 both shot down more planes than any two allied types, I would be forced to think that there was at least something in it!
 
god you wont let go of an idea even when you have had it explained in detail why your logic is faulty
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    OBNW.   2/23/2013 5:10:50 PM
Has Stuart never heard of an acceleration STRAIN GAUGE?
 
It's a little spring contraption with a free weight (mass) on the end of the spring that stands on a fixed surface perpendicular to the vector of motion you want to measure the object inertia resistance of.
 
It does not weigh all that much. It can have a variety of scales used. The simplest is a ruler scale marked for the distance the mass is displaced from rest (hence the term REST MASS).
 
It is entirely self contained and portable. You can move it around and measure internal loads anywhere in an aircraft. The scale is read off in ratios of rest mass usually called gees.
 
They used them in WW I to measure strain on wings in a turn. 
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/23/2013 5:34:43 PM
 
shooter just because there is no pic didnt mean its not out there
 
and for your info shooter the Lancaster flew 4500 daylight missions with a < 1% lossrate, that is from a book you claimed to have read
 
oh and the pic of the B17 this aircraft was hit by a 109 there was not much opotunity for a Lanc to hit a single engine fighter most likelyhood is that it would be a 4 engine heavy or a twin nightfighter, both of which would make a bigger mess so not sure a valid comparison can be made
 
a question about 124406, has it had its ball turret replaced with a radardome?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics