Coolest aircraft made during WW2

Yes…twin 30mm cannons mounted on the wings. This was a common conversion later in the war for use against Armor on the Eastern Front. I think each cannon could only fire about 20 rounds apeice–'cuz that’s all the Stuka could carry!

Ozone27

Stukas sound the coolest. I like the Jap Zeros as well, the white ones. Its a tight little aircraft.

Yeah, the zeros were amazing aircraft. The Nakajima Ki-84 was probably one of the finest all-around aircraft of the war. The only problem was that most Japanese pilots (after 1943) were inexperienced and unable to effectively pilot such an aircraft.

Well thats what you gey for raming your planes into amarican ships.

i like the RAF hurrican, good bomber killer and better handling then the spitfire

Of all the things about WW2 that ive read or watch, never once had i heard anything about Russain aircraft.

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 ]