ETO Fighters 1939-1942 Part 2 -Which would you fly? - Aircraft of World War II

Arsenal VG-33 · 01-25-2008, 04:32 PM

This is something of a follow-up to DerAdler's poll on the Best ETO Fighters 1939-1942. This time it's a choice of the lesser known aircrafts, of countries other than the US-UK-GER. These aircraft did not have the advantage of further modifications and upgrades as the more famous fighters we have all become familiar with.

I included only aircraft which saw frontline service, from the following countries: France, Poland, Holland, Russia, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Italy.

Marcel · 01-25-2008, 04:36 PM

Better add a poll then

Arsenal VG-33 · 01-25-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel

Better add a poll then

I have it now. My first time at this, took me a minute to realize the answers I needed were in the FAQ section!

I chose the Caudron C. 714, only because I like crappy, half-wood and half metal "desperation weapons" that could give anyone a challenge.

Marcel · 01-25-2008, 04:50 PM

Very good. I voted Fokker G.I, partly because I'm quite biased towards this machine

. I still think it was a very promising machine. Very versatile, manouvrable, heavy weapons for the time, one of the first multirole airplanes. Fokker has considered fitting it with RR merlins which would have given the dutch a mossie-like plane already in 1940. Unfortunately because of great misjuging from the dutch government, it could never develope it great potential.

joy17782 · 01-25-2008, 06:32 PM

the d-520 was a good lookin plane and could hold its own, but the french miltary only let it operate too protect its aircraft industry i wonder what the hell they were thinking would it have been better used over the sedan crossing chaseing down stukas or me 109s but a plane is only as good as the pilots> never forget this<

Soren · 01-25-2008, 06:57 PM

My favor tends to be with the Italian planes, I really admire Reggiane 2000 series, esp. the 2005, the Ferrari of the fighter world in WW2

Njaco · 01-26-2008, 12:36 AM

I chose the D 520. The Russian and Italian a/c have a good history but I thought the 520 presented itself well early in the war. The G1 was to have promise but don't know if it got a chance to tangle with the Luftwaffe.

Konigstiger205 · 01-26-2008, 04:37 AM

I have to go with the IAR 80 for the simple fact that was made by my country in the time when we could still produce a plane that would be a challenge in the hands of a good pilot...

Desert Fox · 01-26-2008, 07:06 AM

I am going for the Macchi 202. It's a beautiful and deadly aeroplane, that could give the Spitfire a run for its money

Wurger · 01-26-2008, 01:09 PM

Although I like PZL P-24 and as Greek Air Force history shows it could meet Italian planes my vote goes to D-520.

Chocks away! · 01-26-2008, 02:41 PM

I'm Greek so I would have voted for the Pzl.
But since this is about which is the best aircraft, my obvious choice is the
MC 202 Folgore.

eddie_brunette · 01-28-2008, 03:03 AM

I go for the LaGG-3!!

The main reason, it would be replaced by the brillaint LaGG-5!!

General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 8.81 m (28 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 9.80 m (32 ft 1.75 in)
Height: 2.54 m (8 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 17.4 m² (188 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,205 kg (4,851 lb)
Loaded weight: 2,620 kg (5,764 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 3,190 kg (7,018 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Klimov M-105PF liquid-cooled V-12, 924 kW (1,260 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 575 km/h (357 mph)
Range: 1000 km (621 mi)
Service ceiling 9,700 m (31,825 ft)
Rate of climb: 14.9 m/s (2,926 ft/min)
Wing loading: 150 kg/m² (31 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 350 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)
Armament
2× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Berezin BS machine guns
1× 20 mm ShVAK cannon
6× RS-82 or RS-132 rockets up a total of 200kg (441 lb)

claidemore · 01-28-2008, 08:19 PM

Good on ya Eddie! Glad to see somebody chose the LaGG3.

I don't think this plane gets enough attention. Though it was not universally liked by pilots, and was too heavy for the Klimov M-105 engine, it did it's job, much like the P40 did.

My choice would be the Yak-1. Same engine as the LaGG3, but a lighter more agile plane. In the paraphrased words of the Soviet pilots who flew it, "It was almost as good as a Messerschmitt." Since the Me109 was, and still is, widely regarded as the best fighter of WWII, the Yak-1 being 'almost as good', is pretty high praise, IMO.

Glider · 01-29-2008, 12:51 PM

I went for the IAR 80. It had a good performance and was pretty agile and in its last version was quite well armed.
Its a good reminder that the smaller countries around the world were capable of building capable aircraft, a point often overlooked.

Tombo · 02-01-2008, 05:47 AM

I also voted for IAR 80.I like its prerformence when I tried it in IL-2,and it looks good to.

View Poll Results: ETO Fighters 1939-1942 Part 2, Which would you fly?
Dewoitine D.520	12	20.69%
Morane-Saulnier MS. 406	0	0%
Fokker D XXI	2	3.45%
Fokker G.1	3	5.17%
PZL P.24	1	1.72%
Fiat G.50	1	1.72%
MACCHI MC 200	1	1.72%
MACCHI MC 202	16	27.59%
MiG-1	0	0%
MiG-3	2	3.45%
Caproni-Reggiane Re 2001	3	5.17%
LaGG-3	2	3.45%
Yak-1	9	15.52%
ROZARSKI IK-3	2	3.45%
IAR 80	3	5.17%
Caudron C.714	1	1.72%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

01-25-2008, 04:32 PM	#1
Arsenal VG-33 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Indiana Posts: 312	ETO Fighters 1939-1942 Part 2 -Which would you fly? This is something of a follow-up to DerAdler's poll on the Best ETO Fighters 1939-1942. This time it's a choice of the lesser known aircrafts, of countries other than the US-UK-GER. These aircraft did not have the advantage of further modifications and upgrades as the more famous fighters we have all become familiar with. I included only aircraft which saw frontline service, from the following countries: France, Poland, Holland, Russia, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Italy. __________________ You'll live. Only the best get killed. - Charles de Gaulle England is a former colony gone horribly wrong. - Georges Clemenceau Last edited by Arsenal VG-33; 01-25-2008 at 04:44 PM.

01-25-2008, 04:36 PM	#2
Marcel Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dordrecht Posts: 3,834	Better add a poll then __________________ " The knack of flying lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."

01-25-2008, 04:50 PM	#4
Marcel Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Dordrecht Posts: 3,834	Very good. I voted Fokker G.I, partly because I'm quite biased towards this machine . I still think it was a very promising machine. Very versatile, manouvrable, heavy weapons for the time, one of the first multirole airplanes. Fokker has considered fitting it with RR merlins which would have given the dutch a mossie-like plane already in 1940. Unfortunately because of great misjuging from the dutch government, it could never develope it great potential. __________________ " The knack of flying lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."

01-25-2008, 06:57 PM	#6
Soren Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,116	My favor tends to be with the Italian planes, I really admire Reggiane 2000 series, esp. the 2005, the Ferrari of the fighter world in WW2 __________________ It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not

01-25-2008, 06:32 PM	#5
joy17782 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: logan ohio Posts: 279	the d-520 was a good lookin plane and could hold its own, but the french miltary only let it operate too protect its aircraft industry i wonder what the hell they were thinking would it have been better used over the sedan crossing chaseing down stukas or me 109s but a plane is only as good as the pilots> never forget this<

01-26-2008, 12:36 AM	#7
Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States Posts: 10,237	I chose the D 520. The Russian and Italian a/c have a good history but I thought the 520 presented itself well early in the war. The G1 was to have promise but don't know if it got a chance to tangle with the Luftwaffe. __________________ "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!" http://www.njcacoa.org/

01-26-2008, 04:37 AM	#8
Konigstiger205 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bucharest Posts: 907	I have to go with the IAR 80 for the simple fact that was made by my country in the time when we could still produce a plane that would be a challenge in the hands of a good pilot... __________________ These airplanes we have today are no more than a perfection of a child's toy made of paper."Henri Coanda"

01-26-2008, 07:06 AM	#9
Desert Fox Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Great Southern Land Posts: 436	I am going for the Macchi 202. It's a beautiful and deadly aeroplane, that could give the Spitfire a run for its money __________________ "Courage is doing what you are afraid to do. There can be no courage unless you are scared." - Eddie Rickenbacker

01-26-2008, 01:09 PM	#10
Wurger Siggy Master Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Poland Posts: 13,972	Although I like PZL P-24 and as Greek Air Force history shows it could meet Italian planes my vote goes to D-520. __________________

01-26-2008, 02:41 PM	#11
Chocks away! Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cyprus Posts: 336	I'm Greek so I would have voted for the Pzl. But since this is about which is the best aircraft, my obvious choice is the MC 202 Folgore. __________________ And now for something completely different...

01-28-2008, 03:03 AM	#12
eddie_brunette Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nelspruit, Mpumalanga Posts: 555	I go for the LaGG-3!! The main reason, it would be replaced by the brillaint LaGG-5!! General characteristics Crew: One Length: 8.81 m (28 ft 11 in) Wingspan: 9.80 m (32 ft 1.75 in) Height: 2.54 m (8 ft 4 in) Wing area: 17.4 m² (188 ft²) Empty weight: 2,205 kg (4,851 lb) Loaded weight: 2,620 kg (5,764 lb) Max takeoff weight: 3,190 kg (7,018 lb) Powerplant: 1× Klimov M-105PF liquid-cooled V-12, 924 kW (1,260 hp) Performance Maximum speed: 575 km/h (357 mph) Range: 1000 km (621 mi) Service ceiling 9,700 m (31,825 ft) Rate of climb: 14.9 m/s (2,926 ft/min) Wing loading: 150 kg/m² (31 lb/ft²) Power/mass: 350 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb) Armament 2× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) Berezin BS machine guns 1× 20 mm ShVAK cannon 6× RS-82 or RS-132 rockets up a total of 200kg (441 lb)

01-28-2008, 08:19 PM	#13
claidemore Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: British Columbia, Canada Posts: 497	Good on ya Eddie! Glad to see somebody chose the LaGG3. I don't think this plane gets enough attention. Though it was not universally liked by pilots, and was too heavy for the Klimov M-105 engine, it did it's job, much like the P40 did. My choice would be the Yak-1. Same engine as the LaGG3, but a lighter more agile plane. In the paraphrased words of the Soviet pilots who flew it, "It was almost as good as a Messerschmitt." Since the Me109 was, and still is, widely regarded as the best fighter of WWII, the Yak-1 being 'almost as good', is pretty high praise, IMO.

01-29-2008, 12:51 PM	#14
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,655	I went for the IAR 80. It had a good performance and was pretty agile and in its last version was quite well armed. Its a good reminder that the smaller countries around the world were capable of building capable aircraft, a point often overlooked.

02-01-2008, 05:47 AM	#15
Tombo Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2	I also voted for IAR 80.I like its prerformence when I tried it in IL-2,and it looks good to.

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