 | Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......| Aviation Discuss Best Bomber Killing Aircraft...... in the World War II - Aviation forums; Post that sh!t up u cigar smokin bastardo....
Ive met most of the same guys u have, albeit it ... |
|
07-14-2007, 08:09 PM
|
#871 | | Minister of Whoopass
Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi
Posts: 12,542
Country:  | Post that sh!t up u cigar smokin bastardo....
Ive met most of the same guys u have, albeit it was 25+ years ago, and no photos remain... I would love to see em...
__________________  "Boyington was a Drunk, but He was a Drunk We'd Follow Straight Into Hell..."
-- Lt. William Northrop Case | 
|  | |
07-15-2007, 04:14 AM
|
#872 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,292
| Yes such pictures are always welcome !
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
08-10-2007, 10:50 AM
|
#873 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Manchester,England
Posts: 11
Country:  | I would have to say the fw 190, but as a night-fighter the HE 219 seem to remember reading about one of those shooting down 5 Lancasters in a single sortie. | |
| | |
08-22-2007, 06:15 PM
|
#874 | | Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 62
Country: | my vote is for the Me-163. | |
| | |
08-23-2007, 12:07 PM
|
#876 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bucharest
Posts: 804
Country:  | Me 262 no doubt....speed and firepower....lucky for the B17's it appeared very late in the war.
__________________
These airplanes we have today are no more than a perfection of a child's toy made of paper."Henri Coanda" | |
| | |
08-23-2007, 06:13 PM
|
#877 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,762
| It is interesting how the mind works with a question like this. Personally I believe there are two parts to this.
a) Being able to destroy the bombers whilst
b) Avoiding the escort fighters.
On this basis the upgunned 190 and 109 don't make the grade because while they are excellent at shooting down the bombers, they are very vulnerable to any escorting fighters.
The 262 has to be the choice for the reasons known to us all. Massive firepower and the ability to use its speed to choose when and how to attack.
At night it becomes the best nightfighter, which is a different thread. | |
| | |
08-23-2007, 07:40 PM
|
#878 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 1,915
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider  It is interesting how the mind works with a question like this. Personally I believe there are two parts to this.
a) Being able to destroy the bombers whilst
b) Avoiding the escort fighters.
On this basis the upgunned 190 and 109 don't make the grade because while they are excellent at shooting down the bombers, they are very vulnerable to any escorting fighters.
The 262 has to be the choice for the reasons known to us all. Massive firepower and the ability to use its speed to choose when and how to attack.
At night it becomes the best nightfighter, which is a different thread. | Glider - those were my criteria and same choice for same reason.. the anology would be a "man among boys".. speed, pick the fight, devastating firepower, evade pursuers with near impunity.. nothing else close. | |
| | |
08-24-2007, 03:41 AM
|
#879 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,762
| Quote:
Originally Posted by drgondog Glider - those were my criteria and same choice for same reason.. the anology would be a "man among boys".. speed, pick the fight, devastating firepower, evade pursuers with near impunity.. nothing else close. | Great Minds!!!
Its almost a case of picking the second best. | |
| | |
08-24-2007, 03:24 PM
|
#880 | | Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 62
Country: | the 163 may not shot down many aircraft but it did hav solar panals so once it flew under a plane it detroyed it. | |
| | |
08-24-2007, 04:47 PM
|
#881 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 612
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by xavier the 163 may not shot down many aircraft but it did hav solar panals so once it flew under a plane it detroyed it. | That was just bizarre . . . | |
| | |
08-24-2007, 04:56 PM
|
#882 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 1,673
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by xavier the 163 may not shot down many aircraft but it did hav solar panals so once it flew under a plane it detroyed it. | Huh????? 
__________________  “Let's get Enterprise and Hornet turned into the wind." | |
| | |
08-24-2007, 04:58 PM
|
#883 | | the old Sage
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Platonic Sphere
Posts: 8,677
Country: | the 163 was a time bomb and cannot even be seriously considered. overall the Fw 190A-8/R8 or Me 262 would suffice, the 262 yes for speed but no endurance and that was it's fault besides it's finicky engines and fuel system
__________________
shhhh ........ es ist ein Geheimnis | |
| | |
10-01-2007, 11:34 AM
|
#884 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country:  | As I already pointed out some months ago, the Me 163 was not a time bomb at all as it was a rather safe and reliable aircraft. Loss figures and witness accounts are clear about that.
Kris
__________________   | |
| | |
10-01-2007, 12:34 PM
|
#885 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,762
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Civettone As I already pointed out some months ago, the Me 163 was not a time bomb at all as it was a rather safe and reliable aircraft. Loss figures and witness accounts are clear about that.
Kris | You have got to be kidding. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 AM. | | |
