Coolest aircraft made during WW2

The russians had some very excellent designs, although generally inferior to German aircraft. They were often much cruder machines although German pilots generally respected the flying characteristics of such outstanding aircraft as Yaks and La-5/La-7s

i said better handling that means it has better stall recovery and the turn and bank is smoother.

A big problem with Western Historians is that they tended to regard the the reason why Germans aces were able to amount such an amazing kill rate on the Eastern War as due to “inferior” Russian design and pilots. But the Yakovlev Yak 9 and La-7 was one of the best fighters of the war and Herman suggested that the Germans avoid dogfighting with the La-7 at altitudes below 5,000 meters.

On 2002-03-26 17:18, Soon_U_Die wrote:
For its role…hands down the Russkie Sturmovik ground assault aircraft.

Joseph Stalin…promptly ordered that production of the Sturmovik was to take priority over production of all other weapon systems, ground or air.

SUD

Yes, the Ilyushin 2 was an awesome aircraft–nicknamed the flying tank (much like the American P-47 “Thunderbolt”) because of its ability to take incredible damage and still bring one home–definitely a plus for the pilot…

I, too think ground-attack planes deserve more of the limelight…

Ozone27

The ME 109 was not a “crappy” aircraft.

Actually at lower altitudes (where most of the fighting on the Eastern Front took place) Russian planes had the advantage. The only exception I can think of to this are the MiGs; they were fairly poor below 16,500 ft but they were great above that, being a full 30 mi/hr faster than a Bf 109 at altitude. Since there were no Bf 109s (or other German aircraft) at that altitude MiGs were used as high altitude recon craft.
I believe that most German aces on the Eastern Front got a large number of their kills when strafing the virtually unprotected airfields in the early days of the invasion when an unholy percentage of the VVS was destroy.

I don’t think that the Me-109 would be a crappy aircraft if the Germans produced over 30,000 of them (the highest build of any fighter).

A pilot doesnt get a “kill” for shooting up aircraft on a runway.

Stukas did most of the ground damage anyway.

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-03-27 17:09 ]

Was Kurt Tank a pilot?

It was a fine plane for most of the war.

Well if you look at the characteristics of the Me-109 was a formidable opponent. Its low speed handling qualities were excellent and its rate of climb matched the Spitfire.

It had a higher service ceiling and the major advantage of fuel injection. This allowed the Me-109’s powerplant to run flawlessly regardless of the aircraft’s attitude, which did not cut out at of negative G.

I think that the weakness of Me-109 were more on logistics and design rather then actual preformance. The cockpit of the M-109 was very small, poor visibility, poor range and endurance, hard to land.

However compared with the likes of the P-51 Mustang the 109 was definately obsolete.

Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-27 19:47 ]

Heck yeah! The P-51D was indeed what I considered the best plane of the war. It preformed well at all altitudes and had unmatched fuel endurance and speed. Plus the P-51D was suited for a variety of task ranging from low level dive bomber to high altitude Bomber escorts. If that wasn’t enough the P-51 was also successful against Me-262 Jet Fighters and Communists MiGs in the Korea War.

I can dispute the P-51’s “good” record against the Me-262. First off, P-51 pilots had extensive training before combat. So when they went into battle, they were prepared. Many of the P-51 kills against the Me-262 occurred when the Me-262 was either taking off or landing. The Me-262 was vulnerable during take off because its jet engines had poor initial acceleration. During landings, it was hard for the Me-262 to abort landings and get back into the air to fight off enemy aircraft. When it usually tried, it ended up in disaster. In both situations, the Me-262 was a sitting duck and an easy kill. Another point, the training of the jet pilots. Here we have a novel technology such as jet fighters and pilots receive the minimum of training. That could only lead to disaster. My last point, many of the Me-262 missions were basically suicide missions. For example, the largest single sortie of Me-262’s involved 55 of them versus a fleet of 2,000 US fighter escorts and bombers. 27 of the jets were destroyed. I rest my case. A little long, but people need to here both sides of the lop-sided story.

484 seems like a rather high estimate, (usually P-51s will reach speeds of 450 mph with a cruising speed of 275 mph) but if that’s the top speed of any P-51 in existence then I guess I beleive you. Just one quick question though, was that speed using a War Model P-51 or one built post-WII?

As for the comment made of P-51s vs. Me-262, I thought that many Me-262 pilots were veteran/elite German pilots such as Aldolf Galland in Jagdverband 44. If it was true that most Me-262 pilots were inexperienced then the Germans would have no problems filling the 400 extra Me-262s that no one had time to fly. Of course getting aquatinted with the plane is a different story. Plus another problem was the “cheap” tactic was P-51s shooting up Me-262 as they were trying to land.

Granted that the Allies had such overwhelming air superiority, which meant the destruction of the Luftwaffe wasn’t that lopsided of an affair. If you compare stats in July 1943 the Allies could only muster some 200 escorts for bomber formations vs. the German’s 600 interceptors. Even then the American P-47 was enjoying high kill ratios. As for the P-51 (even with the allies advantages in numbers and traning) it’s still impressive for such a mass-produced plane to post a kill ratio of 19 to 1, the highest of any fighter in history.