us fighters

[Attrition]

Takao has it right, the P-40 with shark's teeth (112 Sqn) is the one. While not as fast as a Me 109F you wouldn't want to owe it money would you?

[kriegsmarine221]

actually. i like the p-40 but i would pick the bf-109 over it. obviously faster. and manuevrability was about the same. the main problem p-40 pilots found was that they ran out of speed very quickly when doing turns etc. but to prove that it is better, in north africa p-40s were usaully flying low across the desert then they were 'bounced' by german fighters. a bf-110 was deadly in that role. they fly above the p-40s at a higher altitude then dived towards it, the bf-110s heavy armament took the p-40s out before they had any time to react.

[Negative Creep]

Mine's probably the P47. I think it's rather unfairly overlooked in favour of the P51 when it comes to escort missions as it quite simply helped to bleed the Luftwaffe white towards the end of the war> I also like the philosophy behind it - take the biggest engine you can and sacrifice grace and manoeuvrability for sheer speed and power. The muscle car of the skies if you will

[kriegsmarine221]

ok. the p-47 was a better match againgst the luftwaffe than the p-51 was. the main problem was that it had a limited range and by that time of the war escorting bombers were important. that why the p-51 eventually replaced the p-47 in the escort role.

[Mauser K98k]

My favorite is the Grumman F8F Bearcat.

One interesting note about the Bearcat is that its design was inspired by the FW-190.

It never saw combat since by the time it was delivered to the PTO and became operational in May of '45 there was not much left of Japanese airpower. So it may not be an eligible candidate for this thread.

If the F8F does not qualify, I fall back to the Bearcat's older brother, the F6F Hellcat.

[kriegsmarine221]

yes. the bearcat was a very good plane despite its ugliness. i think that all radial engined planes are ugly. but im wondering, there were us carriers in europe so why didnt the corsair and hellcat etc fight in europe? no one would ever know how good the corsair was againgst the luftwaffe.

[Ironmachine]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are many radial-engined planes that I find very beautiful.
By the way, the british used both their FAA Hellcats and Corsairs in Europe. The Hellcat took part in the attacks on the Tirpitz and in the invasion of southern France in August (this time alongside U.S. Hellcats). The Hellcats shot down a handful of German aircraft in these operations. The Corsairs provided cover for several attacks on the Tirpitz, but they did not encounter Luftwaffe opposition.

[Mauser K98k]

I'm with you, Ironmachine.

In fact, I can't offhand think of a fighter plane that I don't think is beautiful...radial engine, liquid-cooled V12 or jet. Some more esthetically pleasing than others, true, but any craft designed to cut through the sky with aerodynamic efficiency has an intrinsic beauty in my eye.

[kriegsmarine221]

really? the i-16 has to be ugly. big fat radial and such a short and stubby body. i know a plane that is beautiful. the yak-3,its sleak, fast, manuevrable with that nicely streamlined inline engine. the radials are just flat on the front offering high drag. the drag is only countered by the power of the engine.

[Ironmachine]

Performance is one thing, beauty is a completely different matter. I myself find the I-16 quite attractive, kind of "teddy bear" fighter.

[kriegsmarine221]

ok. is there any fighter that you think is just less attractive than other?

[Ironmachine]

Yes, there are. But I judge beauty as a whole; there is no single feature, unless it is an obvious abnormality, that makes me see an airplane as ugly (or beautiful).

[Takao]

The I-16 always made me think of the Gee Bee racing planes from the 1930s.

[kriegsmarine221]

i think the gee bee look even worse than the i-16. the i-16s engine size compared to fuselage size is already unrealistic but fitting that huge radial on the gee bee with that tiny cockpit ruins the look completely. the gee bee is more like a flying engine.

[Mauser K98k]

i think the gee bee look even worse than the i-16. the i-16s engine size compared to fuselage size is already unrealistic but fitting that huge radial on the gee bee with that tiny cockpit ruins the look completely. the gee bee is more like a flying engine.

That was the overall goal of the Granvilles. Largest possible engine with lightest possible lowest-drag airframe, and just enough wing area to let it fly. I think they are charming in their grotesqueness, as is the Rata.

Speaking of the Gee Bee, (if I may drag this slightly more off-topic -- sorry) Delmar Benjamin puts on quite a show flying aerobatics in his R2 Replica.
http://warbird.com/gbvsfaa.html
http://www.pbase.com/staggerwing/image/26586076