Warbird Information Exchange

You mean that's not a night fighter?

What's the story on that pic? Shrapnel to the oil tank? How long would he have been able to fly at that point??

I love all the fighters from WWII. But the Mustang will always be my favorite.

Randy...gotta' take exception to your "Bar" analogy. It really depends on how close it is to closing time.

Mudge the teetotaler

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

The gang at Planes of Fame have a second seat in their razorback jug...

If I'm not mistaken I believe "Little Demon" had a second seat as well. Not sure if it still does now that it's in the U.K.

John

I don't have anybody specific in mind -- it never struck me as an important question -- but maybe Jeffrey Quill or other factory/test pilots, maybe someone who happened to fly a lot more wartime sorties, maybe somebody like Paul Day or Hanna who probably has/had a lot more postwar hours.

Not a big deal and not to take anything away from Jerry, but it's just not a claim that seems obviously true to me, so I was curious about the number.

August

RE. The spelling of Eric Hartmann, I used to be in a spelling bee, but that was in the 3rd grade. To paraphrase a WWI American pilot regarding German pilots, they all look like Fokkers to me. The point that I was trying to make is that as Americans we may get carried away with the attributes of our own products, and if you talk about great fighters you should consider not just opinions, but the factual scores of each plane. Much as we Allies might admire a Jug or Mustang pilot, or the tecnology of a late FW-190, the top RAF guys had more results, and all of them are much less than the top German aces in that old fashioned 109.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

First off, that picture was of a Jug with "Advanced Ground Camoflage" From the air, on the tarmack, that plane is invisible!

Secondly, my Pop flew 110 missions in CBA with the 60th Fighting Crows. He flew Jugs, and P-38's with a bit of time in Mustangs. His all time favorite was the Jug, 2nd the Mustang, and he "hated" the P-38. This was typical of that time. Guys either loved the P-38 or hated it. Very little compromise.

So, give me a Razorback any day. It's kind of like "Built for comfort or built for speed". Sometimes the comfort is the better way.

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

I already know Bill's preference for Spitfires over Corsairs, so I won't go there (especially since I have never flown a Corsair and Bill has THOUSANDS of hours in Spits) but the pacific would've never been won without round engine designs, corsairs hellcats, wildcats and the like...the round engine reliability (as illustrated above with most of the oil on the fuselage of the plane as opposed to inside) shows how reliable they were compared to inlines....the engine...AND THE PILOT...make the plane...

mark

_________________
Mark Morris

Randy....................perfect post!!!!


Somehow this post always comes up again and again. Personally for WW2..........a round motor in a corsair is a chick magnet. But you had to hand it to the Britts on the RR merlin. I found out not to long ago that there was another person that was upset about the addition if a Brittish engine in the mustang. That was Henry Ford. He had designed and built a engine for the Mustang but the govt did not buy it for the P51. So he cut it in half and made the Ford GAA engine and sold it to the govt for the Sherman tank.

Back to fighters..................My dad biggest problem was that "they got too dammed big!!!" We started out with the F-86, then were way up there with the F-101 and they stayed big throught the inventory until someone smartened up with the F-16..................he was right, I got a pic of the F-86 sitting with a F-16.............there cute!

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

Ed Heinneman had the same problem with the trend toward complexity in fighters being produced in the 50s. When asked to provide an all jet attack aircraft to replace the Skyraider his team came up with the A-4 Skyhawk. It adhered strictly to the KISS principal. Because of that it is supposed to have 23,000 fewer parts than its contemporaries. (F-4)

I have to plead guilty here, since I am the one who began this round of "Mustang is better" [and it is] than anything else : )

I did it as a joke, knowing that there would be very good reasons posted as to why one side favors radial versus in-line engines.

Aesthetically, the Mustang wins for me, hands down. Even though ease of maintenance was the buzzword for aircraft supplied to Latin America, which is after all the area that interest me the most- P-47s did not survive for long there, but the Mustangs did, which is a tribute to the abilities of the maintenance personnel.

I know that the Spitfire has a large following, but I have never liked it. The landing gear looks weak, the range was nothing to write home about, and as far as I know, Hurricanes provided better combat service than the Spitfires.

I love to see a Corsair, and I like to see a P-38, of course the Bearcat is also a favorite, but none of them in my personal taste, hold a candle to a F-51. This is what is called a SUBJECTIVE opinion : )


Saludos,


Tulio

A VERY subjective opinion, in my opinion!

Bent wings does it for me. I appreciate them all (where would we have been without the Wildcat and the P-40?) but Love the Corsair.

Just MY 2 cents...

Gracias,

Mark

_________________
Mark Morris

"A VERY subjective opinion, in my opinion!"

But.... of course!!!! : )

I grew up looking only at F-51s, B-26s and T6-Gs; C-47s and C-45s... I faintly recall seeing P-26s in flight.

The first Corsair I ever saw, was in 1969 when an Honduran Corsair landed in Guatemala during the 100 hour war with El Salvador.

So, my childhood was filled with the wonderful sound of RR Merlins, I recall seeing up to 16 or more in the air at the same time.

I have seen the Mustangs in action, I have been very close to the receiving end.... another time, another country, but there is no doubt that this molded an image and a bias in my mind.

So, for me, sure, I like to see other aircraft, but my personal preference has been and will be, the N.A.A. P-51D / K-...


Saludos,


Tulio

Endless debate but here are some facts.

1. W/O the Mustang the 8th, 12th and 15AF fails in their mission of Strategic Bombing making a contribution to the war. Neither the 47 nor the Spit had the legs and the 38's did not operate well at high altitude over Europe.

Hence no Oil Campaign, no Aircraft Facory Campaign, no big dogfights over Germany to deplete the experienced Germn fighter arm...huge breather for Luftwaffe to get pilots trained, plenty of fuel to fly and about 1200 more experienced fighter pilots not killed by 51's between January and June are available for D-Day. Maybe no D-Day.

2. W/O the Mustang there is no fighter capable of the huge tactical footprint with high performance to punish German airfields and rail and barge traffic Between Poland and France - other than the P-38... and capable of taking an equally trained Luftwaffe pilot in a high performance fight ranging from the deck to high altitude - which the 38 had a problem with until effective dive brakes came with the P-38J (way late for Jan-May battles).

Yes and occsional 38 came back with battle damage to one engine that would have killed a 51. And yes the 47 came back many times with hits that a 51 (or Spit or 109) could not... but the 51 had a far better air to air ratio and killed a lot more Luftwaffe pilots and a/c on the ground.

Yes the P-47M had range but it came way to late to be effective after the disaster in the fall of 1943 through the great air battles of 1944... and it was still a relative dog in a low altitude dogfight against a skilled Fw 190 or 109 driver...

But the loss rate for B-17 and B-24's were far too high when only 47's and 38's and Spit's were escorting - but plumeted when the 51's arrived


Yes the 56th FG did a superb job in 47's but the groups that started out as relative dogs in 47's (ie. 4th, 78th, 352nd, 353rd, 355th)became killers in 51's and the 354th and 357th started out as killers with low combat time pilots in the 51 against the best the Luftwaffe had to offer. The 479th couldn't do much with 38's until they converted to 51's, ditto the 20th and 55th - both of the latter groups with worst air to air record.

The 4th vets flew the Spit and the Jug and favored the 51 simply because they could out fight the 190 and 109 over Berlin instead of Calais or Paris.

Ask the one the 354th FG pilots how much they wanted 51's back (and finally got them when every other 9th AF group were stuck with 47's-despite the low altitude mission)..I'm sure there were a few 47 pilots that flew both and preferred the 47 but a hell of a lot fewer for the ones that were fighting the Luftwaffe.

So the question is - do you judge the best fighter as the best one on one a/c in the most ranges of a dogfight - or do you judge it on the results achieved for the mission it was applied against which caused the most damage to the opposing force? I choose the latter.

I'm still voting for the B/C/D Mustangs as the most important fighter of WWII with the Spit and Fw 190 a close second - and tip my hat to the 109, the 38 and the 47 for the ETO.

No, I haven't forgotten the Me 262, the F-6F, the Typhoon or Tempest or the F4U or the Shiden or the Yal 9 - all superb a/c - but compare the records, the task and the results and make your own judgement.

I had a great time debating this with Wing Commander Brown who had significant experience flying all the ETO RAF, USAAF and LUftwaffe birds and viewed it from a performance basis while I took the above approach in the dialogue.

Regards,

Bill Marshall

Drgondog, You brought out some good points about the different fighters. The 51 came along well into the war, when the need was for long range bomber escort, and the is no doubt the Mustang was best at that. The Spits and Hurricanes had already turned back the Germans over England, and taken the fight into the Continent, but even with a big drop tank Spits or 47 still did not have as much range. Some tout the 38, and some pilots did well down low in the Pacific with them, but the 109's chopped them up over Europe. Think of the assets a fighter needs, then think of the mission and any liabilty. Spits were proven in the intense fighting in Malta,early in the war,and the latter models were even more potent, ranking in at or near the top in every asset except range, with the only liability being water cooled vulnerability to ground fire.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK