NickD said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:NickD said:Most successful fighter of WWII, baby
Also, pretty damn stylish, although doesn't quite top the P-40
Having a whole lot of machine guns up front that are accurate to any range up to 1000 yards, instead of wing mounted guns boresighted to a narrow distance, helps tremendously. As did its ability to dive very fast, which worked well with the zoom and boom technique needed to take down Zeros and not die.
And twin engines and control surfaces meant it could take a grade-A ass-beating and keep airborne.
It administered fairly effective ass-kickings too. Just ask Admiral Yamamoto. 
NickD said:Most successful fighter of WWII, baby
Also, pretty damn stylish, although doesn't quite top the P-40
F4U for me.
That's camping!
Indy - Guy said:
Please tell me that this is still available somewhere.
NickD said:Most successful fighter of WWII, baby
Also, pretty damn stylish, although doesn't quite top the P-40
"Most Successful"? I guess with the Yamamoto thing, that's certainly a good argument.
Certainly a great plane, but not without it's faults. Great, focused, armament (build under the same requirement request as the P39), very fast, great range, very versatile (carried a lot and made a great photo recon plane).
Famous for dangerous dive (compressibility) characteristics. Could have been much faster in early versions but had boost issues because of a poorly designed intercooler (used the wing skin). Training 18 year olds to fly a twin was a bit of a problem. Apparently not a very effective cockpit heater(!). Most interestingly, and like least know.... it was REALLY expensive to build! Like almost twice the cost of a P-51! (P51 was around $65,000, P47 around $80,000, P38 around $110,000!!)
Of course, the US's highest scoring ace did fly one:
For me. I would go with a P47 (the Corsair is great choice also, my step dad loved flying one):
In reply to BoxheadTim :
They are. These are part of the "Collection"
In reply to BoxheadTim :
They are. I found a reference to pricing somewhere in the $980 range but the manufacturer website doesn't show pricing.
In reply to aircooled :
The compressibility issues, IIRC, were because it could dive fast enough to be outside generally understood aerodynamic principles. This is how we learn, after all 
Later aircraft that were as fast or faster benefited from those lessons on the drawing board.
The Zero also had some aerodynamic issues at top speed, the controls got extremely heavy, and then the fuselage would just sort of come apart. Fortunately (?) the engine didn't make enough power for the speed issue to come up often.
Buick Roadmaster ambulance in the Netherlands.
aircooled said:NickD said:Most successful fighter of WWII, baby
Also, pretty damn stylish, although doesn't quite top the P-40
"Most Successful"? I guess with the Yamamoto thing, that's certainly a good argument.
Certainly a great plane, but not without it's faults. Great, focused, armament (build under the same requirement request as the P39), very fast, great range, very versatile (carried a lot and made a great photo recon plane).
Famous for dangerous dive (compressibility) characteristics. Could have been much faster in early versions but had boost issues because of a poorly designed intercooler (used the wing skin). Training 18 year olds to fly a twin was a bit of a problem. Apparently not a very effective cockpit heater(!). Most interestingly, and like least know.... it was REALLY expensive to build! Like almost twice the cost of a P-51! (P51 was around $65,000, P47 around $80,000, P38 around $110,000!!)
Of course, the US's highest scoring ace did fly one:
For me. I would go with a P47 (the Corsair is great choice also, my step dad loved flying one):
I have a book somewhere in my personal library that explains that on the ratio of "enemy planes shot down to planes lost" the P-38 had the highest ratio of any fighter of WWII. A lot of top aces from WWII flew P-38s (Richard Bong with 40 victories, Thomas Mcguire with 38 victories, Charles MacDonald with 27 victories). It also highlighted the sheer durability of the P-38, the concentrated firepower in the nose, it's long range and high-altitude capabilities, and it's flexibility in roles. They performed pretty well not just as fighters, but as escorts, recon planes, night fighters, fighter-bombers, and ground-attack planes. They were also fairly forgiving to fly once the early issues were sorted out. That being said, they were rumored to be pretty tricky to bail out of, because you ran the risk of getting hit by the horizontal stabilizer. The trick that some learned was to roll the plane and bail out while it was upside down.
Aaarrrrr.... My imagination hurts!
NickD said:...I have a book somewhere in my personal library that explains that on the ratio of "enemy planes shot down to planes lost" the P-38 had the highest ratio of any fighter of WWII. ....
Pretty sure that is actually the Hellcat (19:1). Not really anything to do with it being the greatest plane. It was really more of an easy, cheap plane to build, sort of the aviation version of the T-34 tank. The info I see is showing them costing $35,000 each in 45! That's stupid cheap (probably helped by volume) and almost half the price of the P51, and 1/3 the price of the P-38!
There were lots of them made, and they came into service just in time for the Japanese to start throwing large amounts of under trained pilots in many times less the current planes at carrier groups (kamikazes).
Not pretty. But it got the job done.
The plane that really won the war:
About those air victories - here are the total numbers. NOTE: this is not normalized per plane or per plane lost.
In reply to aircooled :
Disagree on the "not pretty" comment. I think the Hellcat has great proportions.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles on YouTube has some excellent videos on the P-38 and the Hellcat. Aircooled's reference to the Hellcat being like the airborne version of the T-34 is a lot more right than wrong. The right airplane at the right time, indeed.
You'll need to log in to post.
