Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - Aviation > Aviation

Aviation Discussion on the aircraft of WWII.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-13-2005, 01:38 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WSM, England
Posts: 20,387
Send a message via AIM to cheddar cheese Send a message via MSN to cheddar cheese
You mean the Me-262? I tend to disagree...
cheddar cheese is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 02:53 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
trackend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canvey Island, Essex
Posts: 4,030
I did CC I also thought that would upset one or two
trackend is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 03:09 PM   #18
aka Dickcheese
 
Matt308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 14,008
Bf 110 or Ju 200

Matt
__________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if
they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.]
Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan

Master of Duplicate Posts
Matt308 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 03:27 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
DaveB.inVa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ
P-51 - I think the Corsair was superior. Just ask Capt. Fernando Soto of the HAF - He shot down a Mustang During the Soccer War, 1969
He also shot down a couple Corsairs as well.
__________________
Fighter pilots make movies....
Bomber pilots make history!
DaveB.inVa is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 04:47 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,753
I will go for the Me-262, too. A damn good (pioneering) plane, yes. But hey, it could never, never, never win the war for the axis or even turn the tide as it can be read in nearly every second book. Thatīs what I call a overrated plane...
__________________
---delcyros---
delcyros is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 05:06 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
mosquitoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Saffron Walden/Sheffield
Posts: 2,991
Send a message via MSN to mosquitoman
I'm going to have to say B-17 aswell, it had a very light bombload for a heavy bomber
__________________

When you realise that the light at the end of the tunnel is actually an oncoming train, you know it's time to run for your life
mosquitoman is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2005, 10:34 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WSM, England
Posts: 20,387
Send a message via AIM to cheddar cheese Send a message via MSN to cheddar cheese
It could carry a fairly large bombload - Just not terribly far
cheddar cheese is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2005, 12:20 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,945
Send a message via MSN to the lancaster kicks ass
CC it never really carried it's full load in combat, most books or films will say the B-17 was one of the best bombers of the war, if not THE best, whereas that is far from the truth..............
__________________

"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."
the lancaster kicks ass is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2005, 01:30 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WSM, England
Posts: 20,387
Send a message via AIM to cheddar cheese Send a message via MSN to cheddar cheese
I know. But I was just saying that it did have a high payload butcouldnt carry it far. I was never making any implications about its full load being used in combat or that it was the best bomber of the war.
cheddar cheese is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2005, 03:28 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
the lancaster kicks ass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,945
Send a message via MSN to the lancaster kicks ass
besides, there was no point in having a large-er then normal payload if you can't make it past Dover
__________________

"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."
the lancaster kicks ass is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2005, 04:41 PM   #26
Anonymous
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The B-17 could carry 6,000 lbs of bombs to a target about 1100 miles away at 25,000 feet. However, for such a long range mission typcially only about 4000 lbs were carried to provide more form-up time at the start of a mission.

The Lancaster could carry about 12,000 lbs of bombs to a target 1100 miles away at about 15,000 feet, or 14,000 lbs of bombs at about 10,000 feet.

If the B-17 were to limit its altitude to 15,000 feet and not have to form up into a bomber box, it could carry 8,000 lbs further to a target further than 1000 miles away.

So yes, the Lancaster did carry a bigger bombload, but it also was much less durable and would have been slaughtered much worse than the B-17 had it undertaken the same daylight missions.

Some other points to be made:

First the specs of the aircraft:

The B-17F had four Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone radials rated at 1200 hp takeoff, 1000 hp @ 25,000 feet, 1380 hp WEP for brief intervals. Max. speed was 299 mph at 25,000 feet, 325 mph at 25,000 feet (war emergency). Cruising speed was ~200 mph. Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 25.7 minutes. Defensive armament: 1 x .30 M2 mg + 11 x .50 M2 hmg's. Production: ~12,750 Sorties flown: ??? Bombs dropped: 500,000 - 640,000 tons in the ETO (sources differ).

The Lancaster Mk.III had four Rolls Royce or Packard Merlin 28 or 38 inverted-Vee, rated at 1460 hp (no WEP figure given). Maximum speed was 281 mph at 11000 ft. Cruising speed was 227 mph at "optimal cruising altitude" (?). Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 41 min 24 sec. Defensive Armament: 8 x .303 Brownings. Production: 7377 Sorties flown: 156,000 Bombs dropped: 608,000 tons HE plus more than 51 million incendiary bombs.

Of the 7377 Lancasters (there may have been a few more but not many) at least 3460 used the American built Packard Merlin, and many RR Merlins used some American built parts. The Lancaster had about 1000 HP more than the B-17, and almost half of them were using American built engines which could have been used in a B-17 or B-24 variant which would have made them substantially faster.

Which brings up another point. Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 used an engine which could have reasonably powered a fighter. It could well be argued that the production of Lancasters cost the British/Americans something around 8,000 Spitfires, 8,000 Mustangs, and another 6,000 Mosquitos! Just food for thought.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2005, 04:55 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Nonskimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,871
Send a message via MSN to Nonskimmer
But why argue it? The Merlins powered the Lancaster as beautifully as they would have any fighter, and there wasn't exactly a shortage of them. Fighters either, for that matter.
Nonskimmer is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2005, 06:37 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 584
I believe the Bf-110 was hopelessly over-rated, as it found-out during the BoB, and perhaps the Ju-87....all very well during the Blitz over European countries prior to the BoB, but both were hopeless against fighter-opposition......Furthermore, neither were particuarly developed further despite these operational setbacks, the Bf-110 worked better in the dark as a NF, but the Stuka plodded-on in spite, only good for bombing escaping refugees and outmanoeuvred infantry.......

I take exception to the Spitfire being drawn into this....The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'....read your bloody history!!...sure the Hurricane was on the scene first, but these two worked in concert during the BoB, then the Spits escorted Hurri-bombers into Europe and the MTO....and both served in various theatres respectively with distinction.....

I also feel the Corsair could've been used more extensively than it was, but the inter-service mascinations of the US Forces dictated it staying in the PTO....the Mustang earned it's rep, useful in all it's versions, excelling in the 'D' model..... again why the P-47 didn't receive more glory was it's deployment - same thing occurred with the Typhoon too....

The B-17 was a good aircraft but it's deployment as an aerial fortress was the cause of many lives lost....they refused to listen to lessons already learned by Bomber Command.... then they had to resort to Bomber Command tactics to make the B-29 viable in Japan....height and firepower aren't everything, if 'foxy-tactics' can be used........
Attached Images
File Type: jpg raf_487__nz__sqn._-_on_the_hunt..._830.jpg (16.1 KB, 644 views)
Gemhorse is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2005, 07:20 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Nonskimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,871
Send a message via MSN to Nonskimmer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemhorse
...The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'...
The whole Empire? New Zealand, Australia, and India would be speaking Japanese and Canada would've eventually been absorbed by the USA, meaning we'd all be speaking English with a Texas drawl.

Go Spitfire!
Nonskimmer is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2005, 07:55 PM   #30
Banned
 
Soren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermansRGeniuses
I'll start the mud throwing.

Spitfire.
I will agree that the Spitfire is overrated by some, but it was also probably the best pure fighter of WW2. So the Spitfire kinda earns its respect.

Quote:
Good, but many planes were better in most categories, such as the La-7.
Now THATS an overrated plane by far !!

If the Spit XIV and La-7 ever met(Considdering both pilots are equal), the Spit would totally trash the La-7 ! (That includes below 3,000m !)

German flight-tests also proves that the Lavochkin is a VERY overrated fighter ! (During the war, German aswell as Finnish 109's walked all over them.)

Most overrated airplane of WW2= The Lavochkin series !
Soren is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
Design by HTWoRKS


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125