best combination of manuverabilty and speed in an allied...

[book1182]

I would go with the P-51H if it made the war. I would like the Typhoon or the Tempest down low and a high flying spit.

[lesofprimus]

I'm taking a different route and suggesting the Ta-152H... At the altitude it was designed to fight at it was unmatched... Even the best Russian fighters couldnt match it at low altitude....

[loomaluftwaffe]

would have blasted the hell out of those mustangs, and the me262s would blast the bombers....

anyways why is ur siggy always about shot up luftwaffe planes or something?

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

I'm taking a different route and suggesting the Ta-152H... At the altitude it was designed to fight at it was unmatched... Even the best Russian fighters couldnt match it at low altitude....

I did not know the Ta152H was an Allied a/c.

Up to 20k the Tempest was 'unbeatable' and 4 20mm helped.

[syscom3]

The P47D-25 was no slouch at 30,000 ft.

[lesofprimus]

I did not know the Ta152H was an Allied a/c.

Doh!!!

[Hop]

British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:

(a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and

(b) later on the tests with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 of JG 300 fitted with underwing gondolas for bomber hunting affairs.

There were of course others used in tests, including a 109E3, a clean G2, etc.

But how does the fact that the RAF had a limited number of captured 109s to test mean their tests were not reliable?

All tests full of mistakes and speculations.

Of captured aircraft? Of course. Captured aircraft don't come with manuals, or mechanics, or the right fuel, and the pilots tend to be fairly uncooperative.

But that affects all countries. The US, for example, claimed after initial tests that the Corsair rolled as fast, or faster, than the Fw 190. The British tests showed much higher roll rate for the 190.

Why did they only convert two squadrons with such a magnificent Mk. VIII?

They didn't. Over 1500 Spitfire VIIIs were made, they served with large numbers of squadrons, including some USAAF ones.

orrect, the Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. VIII, but how many of this particular -faster- model were ever made?

957, iirc.

[Parmigiano]

Spit Mx XIV for me

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by Udet

British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:

(a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and

(b) later on the tests with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 of JG 300 fitted with underwing gondolas for bomber hunting affairs.

The British captured and tested over 20 different Bf 109s, and also tested several other Bf 109s captured by French and American forces during the war. Most of the Allied testing lines up reasonably well in its conclusions over the war period.

I wouldn't doubt the RAF's testing of its own equipment. It was done in order to best understand the aircraft it was operating, not so you could dispute it on the internet.

All tests full of mistakes and speculations.

I'm sure they were. German and Italian tests of British equipment would be similarly flawed. Its part of not having perfect knowledge about your enemy and his standards and operating procedures. However, both sides generally got the fundamentals right when testing enemy equipment. Engineering and mechanical principles don't really change that much.

Why did they only convert two squadrons with such a magnificent Mk. VIII?

Mostly because the MTO/PTO was a secondary theatre to the RAF after 1944 and there was a slow conversion over to the Basta modification. I said 'a couple' because I didn't have an absoulte reference on numbers. When I checked it seems like 244, 322 and 324 Wings, at a minimum, converted thier squadrons to Basta modifications in late 1944/early 1945. So that gives about 12 Mk VIII squadrons in the MTO on +25lbs.

Correct, the Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. VIII, but how many of this particular -faster- model were ever made?

There were about 275 mk XIVs built post war, so approximately 700 were built before VJ day.

Wartime service there were 10 squadrons fully equipped with F Mk. XIV or FR Mk. XIV, with the first missions in May 1944. So that's 10 squadrons x 20 aircraft each = 200 airframes, without counting losses or accidents. Plus there were the 2 squadrons who converted in May 1945 and 2 squadrons sent to India in June 1945, and 2 squadrons who operated the type in conjunction with other planes for low-level tactical recon.

[KraziKanuK]

There was more Mk XIVs than there ever was 1.98ata K-4s which only appeared in the last month or two of WW2.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Glider

I think you will find that 1,658 Spit VIII;s were built. It was stronger than the Spit IX, had a longer range and was standard issue in the Far East.

As an aside why does everyone thnk that the British were bad at testing aircraft.
We had more reason than most to test planes properly, had the gumption to set up the worlds first test pilot school in 1942 and set up standard testing criteria to ensure a level playing field.
There were a number of 109's tested from the E onwards so I don't know where scarce came from.

I will rephrase the first line of the second para.
As an aside Udet, why do you think that the British were bad at testing aircraft

[Lunatic]

#1: F8F Bearcat
#2: Spitfire Mk.21 (I think that's the right mark)

=S=

Lunatic

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Udet

British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:

(a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and

(b) later on the tests with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 of JG 300 fitted with underwing gondolas for bomber hunting affairs.

All tests full of mistakes and speculations.

Why did they only convert two squadrons with such a magnificent Mk. VIII?

Correct, the Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. VIII, but how many of this particular -faster- model were ever made?

And I guarantee you German testing of allied equipment was just as flawed. It is because they did not know the equipment like the Germans do. The Germans did not know Allied equipment as well as the Allies did.

Originally Posted by plan_D

People don't, Glider, Udet does. He has this unhealthy dislike of the British military system during World War II. Even more to the point he dislikes the Spitfire, he cannot believe that something so good could have come from the Allied forces. After all, we are talking about a person who believes 90% of the war stories are Allied propaganda - hell, maybe he thinks Germany won the war and we've got Iraqs propaganda minister working for us.

"The Allies have not entered Berlin!"

And these arguments of his are getting very very very old.

Originally Posted by Lunatic

#1: F8F Bearcat
#2: Spitfire Mk.21 (I think that's the right mark)

I will agree with you on that and say F8F Bearcat and Spit Mk. 21. When I said the Spitfire at first I was not thinking of the later generation of aircraft the allies produced. Ill go with the Bearcat and the Spitfire Mk. 21 as second. I think overall throught the whole war the Spitfire represented the Allies in this catagory the best.

[mosquitoman]

I'd go with a Tempest at any altitude but especially down low, if it counted, the Fury

[wmaxt]

I don't buy the F8F, it was certainly a good aircraft but it was far to limited. It was never used during the war and more importantly, it was a point defense aircraft only.

I'll stick with the Spitfire/P-38 combo.

wmaxt