Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



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

Polls Polls and discussion on their results.

View Poll Results: Which fighter gave the best new advantage when introduced?
Bf 109 (over Spain) 16 13.56%
Spitfire 2 1.69%
Fw 190A 18 15.25%
A6M Zero 8 6.78%
F4F 0 0%
N1K series 0 0%
F6F 5 4.24%
F4U 2 1.69%
P-38 2 1.69%
La-5 0 0%
P-51B 22 18.64%
Me 262 41 34.75%
Yak-3 2 1.69%
Ki-100 Tony 0 0%
Ki-84 Frank 0 0%
Voters: 118. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-22-2009, 05:33 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,128
I voted for Bf109. The 262 has its obvious merits, but for reasons outside its control its overall impact on the war was negligible.

The Bf 109 however appeared when the Gladiator, hell even the Hawker Fury II, was still only on test! This cantilevered monoplane with its 300mph plus potential frightened us to death. It was a signal of Germany's intent, and it was why we had the Hurricane, Spitfire and all the investment and expansion that went hand in hand with them in the second half of the 1930's. Yes we talked of appeasement and treaties, but thanks to this and its ilk we were making sure we prepared for war, thankfully.
Waynos 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 07-22-2009, 05:34 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
vikingBerserker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 6,208
Send a message via MSN to vikingBerserker Send a message via Yahoo to vikingBerserker
I had to go with the Me 262 just due to the shock value - which was probably somewhat short lived.
__________________
Take arrows in your forehead, but never in your back. - Samurai maxim


vikingBerserker 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 07-22-2009, 05:50 PM   #63
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oshawa ON
Posts: 28
I also think the P-38 had a unique advantage for it's pilots. Unfortunately, this advantage could also be a disadvantage. It's twin tail boom made it easily identifiable to friendly pilots and more importantly, to flak happy gunners in the Pacific(no offense intended), which probably reduced the loss rate from friendly fire. However an enemy pilot could easily pick you out in a furball. A twin engined fighter is also an advantage when you consider the redundancy of having two engines. But all in all I'd have to say the advantages the P-38 offered its pilots did not make it a war changing plane like the P-51.
The entrance of the P-51 completely altered the course of the strategic air war over Germany.
__________________
"In war, the truth is so precious, she must be jealously watched over by a body guard of lies."
carbonlifeform 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 07-22-2009, 05:55 PM   #64
Senior Member
 
Clay_Allison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by carbonlifeform View Post
I also think the P-38 had a unique advantage for it's pilots. Unfortunately, this advantage could also be a disadvantage. It's twin tail boom made it easily identifiable to friendly pilots and more importantly, to flak happy gunners in the Pacific(no offense intended), which probably reduced the loss rate from friendly fire. However an enemy pilot could easily pick you out in a furball. A twin engined fighter is also an advantage when you consider the redundancy of having two engines. But all in all I'd have to say the advantages the P-38 offered its pilots did not make it a war changing plane like the P-51.
The entrance of the P-51 completely altered the course of the strategic air war over Germany.
The P-38's main advantage was concentrated firepower, IMO. The ability to just shoot straight instead of trying to shoot from the wings allowed for much greater engagement distances. I think they should have left off the big malfunctioning cannon and gone whole hog with 8 .50s. It's a shame we didn't reinvent the minigun until Vietnam, a .50 caliber gatling would have been terrifying for enemy fighters.
__________________
It's always easy to find reasons why something shouldn't be done, the trick is to find ways to get it done. -- claidemore
Clay_Allison 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 07-22-2009, 06:02 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
BikerBabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Denmark.
Posts: 1,411
Send a message via MSN to BikerBabe
Me 262 in my opinion.
I am well aware that this particular plane model didn't get the time to do much good for Germany back then, but it was a huge technical step forward, compared with the various other planes from all over the world at the time.
__________________
Kein Anderer als ein Jäger spürt - Den Kampf und Sieg so konzentriert,
Das macht uns glücklich, stolz und froh; Der Jägerei ein Horrido!


BikerBabe 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 07-22-2009, 06:10 PM   #66
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1
Cool Me-178

Nice poll. However the Heinkel was some of the most inovative aircraft to be developed. A lot of the ideas were taken and shared with other German aircraft. Heinkel should be given a lot of credit. He-178 was the first jet propelled manned aircraft.

Last edited by Eddar; 07-22-2009 at 06:13 PM.
Eddar 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 07-22-2009, 06:14 PM   #67
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oshawa ON
Posts: 28
Yeah, yer right about the concentrated firepower. And I do believe some units did get rid of the cannons and went with the 8 .50's although I could be wrong.
If they had fitted a pair of Merlins into the P-38 and kept to the .50's without the cannons,(or at least went with cannons that worked) the P-38 would have indeed been a truly fearsome weapon and could well have become the greatest multi role fighter of the war.
__________________
"In war, the truth is so precious, she must be jealously watched over by a body guard of lies."
carbonlifeform 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 07-23-2009, 10:01 AM   #68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montrose, Colorado
Posts: 3,525
The ME262 was a huge jump in performance but I don't believe it was a surprise as Britain and the US had advance notice about it's development and had jets of their own in the works. The A6M was a huge surprise because of it's overall impact on the war. Because of it's long range, it could be places where no other fighter could be expected to be and it's performance, flown by superbly trained IJN pilots made it almost unbeatable.
renrich 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 07-26-2009, 07:13 AM   #69
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
 
Njaco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: South Jersey, United States
Posts: 11,833
The Me 262. Agreed that while its entry into the war was shocking and negligable, its value in the history of avaition is inmessurable. Yes, the Allies were working on jet design but the type of jet engine used by the Me 262 was more efficent and is mostly the blueprint for engines today (centrifugal-flow vs axial-flow ). It ushered in a whole new way of waging aerial warfare and almost overnight made every piston-engined fighter or aircraft obsolete. In terms of what it did just for the war, maybe not much but for aviation history, it was a whole new world.
__________________

"If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!"


Last edited by Njaco; 07-26-2009 at 07:16 AM.
Njaco 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 07-26-2009, 07:13 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
parsifal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,493
I kind of agree with both of you. The 262 was a technological marvel, it represented the pinnacle of jet technology for its time.

But it did not have anything really revolutionary or surprising either. It was not the first , not even the first to enter squadron service, and there is nothing revolutionary in its technology that the allies did not have comparable solutions.

If you expand the original thread, to look at the impact of a fighter, as I did, and pay less attation to the purely technical side of the equation, I doubt the 262 can be seen as the most influential . Perhaps the He 178, perhaps the zero, perhaps the P-51. Each had an impact on either warfare, or technology or politics, or a combination of all three. Its then a question of estimating how much effect....my money was on the zero, but thats just an opinion
__________________
Do not judge on abilities, but on choices
parsifal 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 07-27-2009, 11:00 AM   #71
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,128
1 The He 178 was not a fighter, but it certainly deserves mention for its postion as the only jet aircraft of the 1930's

2 The allies also developed axial engines, and flew them.
Waynos 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 07-27-2009, 02:02 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynos View Post
2 The allies also developed axial engines, and flew them.
They also worked a lot better. Axial type compressors can be more efficient, but for the low thrust levels and low pressure ratios being produced there isn't a great deal of difference between axial and centrifugal types. In fact, the axial type used on the 004 was less efficient than the British centrifugal types. On the other hand, axials are more complicated, heavier, harder to build, have narrower performance bands and were generally a pain to get right.
red admiral 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 07-28-2009, 08:45 AM   #73
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
 
Njaco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: South Jersey, United States
Posts: 11,833
But to gain more power wouldn't an axial be more efficent as you would just add more rotating blades behind those already there? That makes for a slimmer design as opposed to the centrifugal-flow which was a little more bulkier and not so stream-lined?

Not disagreeing on your points about the Allies having the better engine but the 004 was the first to be 'efficently' (loose term ) used in ops.
__________________

"If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!"

Njaco 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 07-28-2009, 09:07 AM   #74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montrose, Colorado
Posts: 3,525
To bolster the case for the A6M and it's impact on the war with it's before 1941 unheard of range and performance. I am reading a new book about the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" and the Japanese were able to launch carrier strikes at least 100 miles further than the US because of the range of the A6M. Many of the IJN strikes were composed of A6M fighter bombers and the other strikes were escorted by A6Ms. This was in June of 1944 and the Japanese were still reaping the benefits of the A6M's long range. If not for the US submarines and the inexperience of the IJN pilots, the battle might have been a much closer run thing.

Last edited by renrich; 07-28-2009 at 05:48 PM.
renrich 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 07-28-2009, 11:37 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Njaco View Post
But to gain more power wouldn't an axial be more efficent as you would just add more rotating blades behind those already there? That makes for a slimmer design as opposed to the centrifugal-flow which was a little more bulkier and not so stream-lined?
Another turbine stage could take more energy from the flow and give more power for a turboprop, but probably wouldn't be suitable for a jet. The low pressure ratio in the 004 means it probably wouldn't be a good idea. Greater mass flow (i.e. larger diameter or more rpm) or higher temperature are how to increase thrust in a turbojet. Junkers went for higher temperatures with late model 004s with new turbine blades, but reduced rpm because of some nasty vibration issues. Axial types are generally smaller diameter, but longer. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two for these thrust levels given that the nacelles on the Me 262 gives more drag than the fatter Meteor ones.
red admiral 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 02:13 PM.
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