Do You Have an Illogical Hatred of an Aircraft? - Page 7 - Aircraft of World War II

RabidAlien · 07-27-2009, 12:44 PM

I wouldn't call it an "illogical hatred", but I've never really been as enamored of the B17 and P51, mainly due to the overabundance of media hype surrounding these planes. I have nothing against the crews that flew these, nor am I ever going to disparage their contributions to the war effort....I just think that, due to the media, a very large number of equally-deserving planes and crews have gone unrecognized.

Junkers88A1 · 07-28-2009, 10:37 AM

spitfire.. as many of you guys says..sick of hearing how pretty it is and so on..and after actually working on it i really started "hating" that plane.. its the most stupid design ever when it comes to actually working on it.. nothing really fits.. everything is in the way of eachother so one cant work on one part unless removing this and that..and to remove this and that one again has to remove another this and that..and so on..
and the english system.. attach one part with 6 different size bolts.. instead of using same size bolts ( like german and american ) and since its all handmade ( as i said earlier here ) nothing really fits.. hate that aircraft and refuse to work more on it.. lst thing i mounted was the oxygenbottles behind the pilotseat ( mark XI ) and first the seat had to be removed..and so on... stupid design ( now i will upset quite a few but its just my opinion and experience ) hehe

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-28-2009, 11:26 AM

Interesting, maybe that has something to do with the turn around times. Have you checked out this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...e-19850-2.html (Battle of Britain: Turn Around Time)

Civettone · 07-28-2009, 11:35 AM

Waynos, this is just a wonderful thread! Really great question!

Personally, I can't think of one. I used to have several of them when I was younger but nowadays I try to keep things rational and in perspective. If I still hate an aircraft, I have a logic for it

I have to think if there is still one ...

Kris

Velius · 07-28-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acerus

i dont like B-24´s....don´t know why....maybe its the Airframe.

Me neither. To me it looks like a box with wings- but it had a large payload so I guess it was for a reason...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

The Beaufighter looks like some mutant insect experiment gone horribly wrong from some deranged evil scientist. Beauty and the Beast.

I don't like how the very tips of the spinners (or prop hubs) are farther forward than the forward most part of the fuselage. For a twin engined aircraft, this just isn't a good look.

Matt308 · 07-28-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velius

I don't like how the very tips of the spinners (or prop hubs) are farther forward than the forward most part of the fuselage. For a twin engined aircraft, this just isn't a good look.

Blaspheme!!

DAVIDICUS · 07-28-2009, 09:58 PM

That is a beautiful ship.

Velius · 07-28-2009, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

Blaspheme!!

Me-410 right? Just doesn't look right to me.

As far as looks goes give me a 110 anyday!

gumbyk · 07-28-2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Junkers88A1

everything is in the way of eachother so one cant work on one part unless removing this and that..and to remove this and that one again has to remove another this and that..and so on..
and the english system.. attach one part with 6 different size bolts.. instead of using same size bolts ( like german and american ) and since its all handmade ( as i said earlier here ) nothing really fits.. hate that aircraft and refuse to work more on it.. lst thing i mounted was the oxygenbottles behind the pilotseat ( mark XI ) and first the seat had to be removed..and so on... stupid design ( now i will upset quite a few but its just my opinion and experience ) hehe

Junkers,
I wouldn't call that an illogical hatred, sounds more like preserving your sanity if you ask me...

Venganza · 07-28-2009, 10:58 PM

There are none I really hate. Hey, I even like the Zubr (look under the Worst Aircraft thread)! That being said, I've never particularly liked the Hurricane. It seems to have been overproduced, overused, and overrated. I realize it shot down more German planes during the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire, but that was in 1940. I would not have wanted to tangle with many other modern fighters in a Hurricane after that date. Even during 1942, when the Soviets were desperate for planes, they didn't like flying the Hurricane and relegated them to PVO (area interceptor) duties as soon as they could replace them with better front line fighters like the La-5, the Yak's, the P-40, the P-39, etc. Some Soviet pilots even preferred the I-16 (hey, what's wrong with the Ishak's squatty looks, anyway?). With its 1920's technology fuselage and thick wings, it just didn't have any stretch. Say what you want to about the Spitfire and Bf-109, but they were first-generation modern monoplane fighters that were developed and remained competitive all the way to the end of the piston-engined fighter era (think Bf-109K and Spitfire F.24). The Hurricane had pretty much reached its potential by the Battle of Britain.

Venganza

DAVIDICUS · 07-28-2009, 11:06 PM

Me-410 right?

I think the technical name used by US fighter pilots was actually "meat on the table."

Waynos · 07-29-2009, 03:36 AM

Glad you guys like the thread, it does raise some interesting views that it might not be appropriate to post in other threads doesn't it?

I knew at the beginning that 'dislike' would be a better word than 'hatred', but like in the press, the more sensationlist word seems to provoke more discussion

Regarding the Spitfire in Junkers post, I agree that this hatred seems entirely logical and it does seem odd that we seemingly gave no thought to access and maintainability in the UK until the MB5, and THEN we didn't produce it

The Hurricane does look 'heavy', and one way I look at it is that it was the ultimate biplane. I know that statement looks like cobblers, but I mean in the way it was made, compared to all the other flashy monplanes. Of course it was this that allowed us to have enough of them in the first place, and I have read that its kill rate in the BoB was the same as the Spitfire, so it wasn't too shabby, but hey, thats whatt he thread is for!

Venganza · 07-29-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waynos

The Hurricane does look 'heavy', and one way I look at it is that it was the ultimate biplane. I know that statement looks like cobblers, but I mean in the way it was made, compared to all the other flashy monplanes. Of course it was this that allowed us to have enough of them in the first place, and I have read that its kill rate in the BoB was the same as the Spitfire, so it wasn't too shabby, but hey, thats whatt he thread is for!

Your statement about the Hurricane makes perfect sense to me, Waynos. In order to have a reasonably modern fighter in service for the upcoming war, Hawker deliberately stuck to tried and true construction techiniques they'd honed on their Fury and Hart series biplanes, combined with a cantilever monoplane design with retractable gear. And it worked - instead of still being largely equipped with Gauntlets and Gladiators by the outbreak of the war, the RAF had Hurricanes, and of course they had many in service for the Battle of Britain.

Venganza

Maximowitz · 07-29-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

Me-410 right?

I think the technical name used by US fighter pilots was actually "meat on the table."

Not always.... See under "Eduard Tratt."

Junkers88A1 · 07-29-2009, 02:49 PM

hi

and thanks for the comments. and YES..i am pretty sure that has to do with turn around times for the spit as its TOTALLY illogical made and everything that has to be done on it is hard time consuming work.. just to replace the coolingtank one has to drill out brackets that holds the cowling..and when a new coolingtank is installed..one has to start riveting the whoel da..n nosesection back in place.. imagine doing that is a stressfull situation when one needs aircrafts back in the air asap.. and compare with the P-51.. ( now i know a lot in here "hate " that plane also ..but its done in 10 minutes.. out with the old and in with the new "

and Waynos

great comment. typical english selfironi !! love it

( and Gumbyk..i think you are on to something there..hehe )

and yes..this thread does make some interesting points that does not show in other threads

i really like this thread

everybody likes to get some steam out from time to time and this is the perfect place

07-27-2009, 12:44 PM	#91
RabidAlien Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hurst, Texas Posts: 3,478	I wouldn't call it an "illogical hatred", but I've never really been as enamored of the B17 and P51, mainly due to the overabundance of media hype surrounding these planes. I have nothing against the crews that flew these, nor am I ever going to disparage their contributions to the war effort....I just think that, due to the media, a very large number of equally-deserving planes and crews have gone unrecognized. __________________ Pillage, then burn. Argue not with dragons, for thou art crunchy and go well on toast.

07-28-2009, 10:37 AM	#92
Junkers88A1 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 1,265	spitfire.. as many of you guys says..sick of hearing how pretty it is and so on..and after actually working on it i really started "hating" that plane.. its the most stupid design ever when it comes to actually working on it.. nothing really fits.. everything is in the way of eachother so one cant work on one part unless removing this and that..and to remove this and that one again has to remove another this and that..and so on.. and the english system.. attach one part with 6 different size bolts.. instead of using same size bolts ( like german and american ) and since its all handmade ( as i said earlier here ) nothing really fits.. hate that aircraft and refuse to work more on it.. lst thing i mounted was the oxygenbottles behind the pilotseat ( mark XI ) and first the seat had to be removed..and so on... stupid design ( now i will upset quite a few but its just my opinion and experience ) hehe __________________

07-28-2009, 11:26 AM	#93
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 34,081	Interesting, maybe that has something to do with the turn around times. Have you checked out this thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...e-19850-2.html (Battle of Britain: Turn Around Time) __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

07-28-2009, 11:35 AM	#94
Civettone Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg Posts: 1,299	Waynos, this is just a wonderful thread! Really great question! Personally, I can't think of one. I used to have several of them when I was younger but nowadays I try to keep things rational and in perspective. If I still hate an aircraft, I have a logic for it I have to think if there is still one ... Kris __________________

07-28-2009, 09:58 PM	#97
DAVIDICUS Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 880	That is a beautiful ship. __________________ . -=DAVIDICUS MAXIMUS=- .

07-28-2009, 10:58 PM	#100
Venganza Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Earth Posts: 386	There are none I really hate. Hey, I even like the Zubr (look under the Worst Aircraft thread)! That being said, I've never particularly liked the Hurricane. It seems to have been overproduced, overused, and overrated. I realize it shot down more German planes during the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire, but that was in 1940. I would not have wanted to tangle with many other modern fighters in a Hurricane after that date. Even during 1942, when the Soviets were desperate for planes, they didn't like flying the Hurricane and relegated them to PVO (area interceptor) duties as soon as they could replace them with better front line fighters like the La-5, the Yak's, the P-40, the P-39, etc. Some Soviet pilots even preferred the I-16 (hey, what's wrong with the Ishak's squatty looks, anyway?). With its 1920's technology fuselage and thick wings, it just didn't have any stretch. Say what you want to about the Spitfire and Bf-109, but they were first-generation modern monoplane fighters that were developed and remained competitive all the way to the end of the piston-engined fighter era (think Bf-109K and Spitfire F.24). The Hurricane had pretty much reached its potential by the Battle of Britain. Venganza __________________ "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever." -Spinal Tap

07-28-2009, 11:06 PM	#101
DAVIDICUS Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 880	Me-410 right? I think the technical name used by US fighter pilots was actually "meat on the table." __________________ . -=DAVIDICUS MAXIMUS=- .

07-29-2009, 03:36 AM	#102
Waynos Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,128	Glad you guys like the thread, it does raise some interesting views that it might not be appropriate to post in other threads doesn't it? I knew at the beginning that 'dislike' would be a better word than 'hatred', but like in the press, the more sensationlist word seems to provoke more discussion Regarding the Spitfire in Junkers post, I agree that this hatred seems entirely logical and it does seem odd that we seemingly gave no thought to access and maintainability in the UK until the MB5, and THEN we didn't produce it The Hurricane does look 'heavy', and one way I look at it is that it was the ultimate biplane. I know that statement looks like cobblers, but I mean in the way it was made, compared to all the other flashy monplanes. Of course it was this that allowed us to have enough of them in the first place, and I have read that its kill rate in the BoB was the same as the Spitfire, so it wasn't too shabby, but hey, thats whatt he thread is for!

07-29-2009, 02:49 PM	#105
Junkers88A1 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 1,265	hi and thanks for the comments. and YES..i am pretty sure that has to do with turn around times for the spit as its TOTALLY illogical made and everything that has to be done on it is hard time consuming work.. just to replace the coolingtank one has to drill out brackets that holds the cowling..and when a new coolingtank is installed..one has to start riveting the whoel da..n nosesection back in place.. imagine doing that is a stressfull situation when one needs aircrafts back in the air asap.. and compare with the P-51.. ( now i know a lot in here "hate " that plane also ..but its done in 10 minutes.. out with the old and in with the new " and Waynos great comment. typical english selfironi !! love it ( and Gumbyk..i think you are on to something there..hehe ) and yes..this thread does make some interesting points that does not show in other threads i really like this thread everybody likes to get some steam out from time to time and this is the perfect place __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode