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

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And that I will buy also. That was a good point.

[FLYBOYJ]

Spit/ P-38 for me!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is what I think I am going back to.

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by 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

Range of the F8F was comprable to that of the Spitfire. Like the Spitfire, the F8F was an interceptor not a patrol/escort plane.

I agree it never saw combat, but it was fully deployed during the war and like the P-51H and F7F suffered from lack of imperative rather than lack of availability. The US just had no imperative to rush these newer types into combat like the British, Germans, and Japanese did near the end of the war.

[Parmigiano]

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.

I strongly support this point, but I remember that when I tried to propose this concept (talking about the Zero tested by US) I got kicked in the ass!

[Parmigiano]

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.

I strongly support this point, but I remember that when I tried to propose this concept (talking about the Zero tested by US) I got kicked in the ass!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Maybe because it was proven even by Japanese pilots. The Zero was a good plane but she was not all she was made out to be.

[Parmigiano]

Hmmm.

to say
'A US (or respectively German or UK) test pilot probably can not squeeze the same performances out of a foreign plane (say respectively a Zero, Mustang or Bf109) that a similarly skilled but more trained-on-the-type pilot can achieve'

has nothing to do with the absolute quality of the plane (Zero, P51 or Bf109)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No the quality of the plane was very good, but in combat it was outclassed. Its armament was outlcassed, its armour was outclassed and in the end its speed was outclassed.

[Udet]

I am going to have me some action here, finally. Things were getting quite cozy in here.

First off, I proceded to discard Mr. Plan_D´s comments off hand for they are of no value or use.

Secondly, mr. Der Adler and his hilarious opinions. What makes you think only you can find others funny eh?

Whatever the result of German testing of allied craft might have been is meaningless. Why? Very simple: such testings have not been presented as any sort of alleged testimony of the superiority of the German hardware -the way the Brits have done it with their own-.



Mr. Glider:

I do know how many Mk. VIIIs were made. I was referring to that particular model Mr. Jabberwocky pointed in his comment: a +25 lbs boost, the "Basta" modification of the Merlin engine.

He first failed to mention what was the strenght of a RAF squadron. But then he said a 20 aircraft squadron.

If only 2 squadrons were fitted with such variant, its contribution was insignificant.

But I will make the update, following his freshest comment: if some 12 squadrons were fitted with the model its contribution is still above marginal, when by the time, the P-51s and P-47s were roaming the skies of Europe by the thousands.

Glider: the fundamental British testings used by most of the present day allied revisionists come from the ones carried out with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 fitted with underwing cannons. It was a Wilde Sau fighter who landed intact in a British airfield.

Go see the performance graphs of a noted Mike Williams and you will find what I mean.


Mr. Krazy Kaniuk:

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

Correct. And?

Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?


So Mr. Jabber, they tested "over 20 different 109s". Questions:

(1) Where are the results of such testings to be found?
(2) Do you have copies of such testings that you can share?
(3) Have you seen the sheets?

Quote:

"However, both sides generally got the fundamentals right when testing enemy equipment. Engineering and mechanical principles don't really change that much."

With the battle results of RAF vs Luftwaffe -before the full assembly of the 8th and 15th- I do not think the Brits quite got them.

Post-war production? There is no relevance in that. I am interested on how those machines fared against the Luftwaffe.

The vaunted and glorified Spitfire Mk XIV which was produced in very modest numbers to say to the least.

[delcyros]

As well as range wasn´t part of the question. It all belongs to agility and speed, so the F8F is a reasonable choice.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Udet

Glider: the fundamental British testings used by most of the present day allied revisionists come from the ones carried out with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 fitted with underwing cannons. It was a Wilde Sau fighter who landed intact in a British airfield.

Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?


So Mr. Jabber, they tested "over 20 different 109s". Questions:

(1) Where are the results of such testings to be found?
(2) Do you have copies of such testings that you can share?
(3) Have you seen the sheets?

Quote:

"However, both sides generally got the fundamentals right when testing enemy equipment. Engineering and mechanical principles don't really change that much."

With the battle results of RAF vs Luftwaffe -before the full assembly of the 8th and 15th- I do not think the Brits quite got them.

The vaunted and glorified Spitfire Mk XIV which was produced in very modest numbers to say to the least.

Interesting choice of words. 'the fundamental British testings used by most of the present day allied revisionists'
I suspect thay you are talking rubbish. The UK had a steady stream of 109's to test. You seem to assume that we only tested one. I know it was a wild Sau but so what. Does that mean mean that we couldn't test it? I take it you have evidence that the British only tested one or two

As for the K4 dgofighting with a Spit yes the Spit would have my money as the 109 had well known and severe problems with its controls getting heavy at high spead. The Spit had its moments but not as bad as a 109.

The Spit 14 was produced in decent numbers but a Mk IX had a decent chance against a K4. You also seem to forget that the 109G was the most produced version.

You also seem to have forgotten my comments about the Test Pilot school. Your statement was that the british couldn't test aircraft ad were buiased. I was pointing out that we took it seriously enough at the height of the war when it was by no means won to set up a special school to look into this special skill.
If the Germans were so good can you give me the details of a German equivalent?

[Hot Space]

As for adding to the Spit I would also go for the XII and Seafire F-47:

In 1942/43 (Can't remember which one as I'm not at home and Haven't got: The Spitfire Story Book by Alfred Price), but they had a race at deck level with a Typhoon a Fw-190 and a Spitfire...........They thought they were gonna get a clapped out old Spit V, but got the Spit XII Prototype........the Spit won by miles and at the time in the war was unbeatable on the deck.

As for the Seafire F-47, crap at low speed but at high speed nothing could really touch it

[KraziKanuK]

Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?

Spit IXs had no trouble with any of the 109s that took part in Bodenplatte.

[Erich]

P-51K