RC Warbirds and Warplanes Discuss rc warbirds and warplanes in this forum.

Top fighters by Flight Journal

Reply
Old 10-15-2012, 05:03 AM
  #1
Ram-bro
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bennington, NE
Posts: 5,705
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default Top fighters by Flight Journal

its time for a little friendly discussion....yea right. Flight Journal has put out their top 10 fihters of WWII and their criteria are

1, Constant production capability in combat capability
2. Four Mission capability
3. Pilot Capability
4. Service record

and as listed by Flight Journal Mag they are
7. P38
6. BF-109
5, Yak 1 and 9
4. Mustang
3. Spitfire
2. FW-190
and the best fighter of WW2.......drum roll


1. P47 Thunderbolt


What say you guys and have some fun with it
Ram-bro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 05:54 AM
  #2
glazier808
 
glazier808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Honolulu , HI
Posts: 3,983
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

Well for me, it would depend on my mission as to which I would pick....of course that's not really how it worked though.

Ground attack. - P47
Fighter v fighter. - BF109F. Second choice Spit Mk9
Being jumped, out numbered and just wanting to make it home. - P 47
Wanting to feel cool. - P51
Wanting to seem evil - FW 190

Casey
glazier808 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 07:36 AM
  #3
da Rock
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Pfafftown NC
Posts: 11,460
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

Silly noise by experts who aren't.

They seemed to miss half of the war. At least they did notice the Russian contribution, but hey guys, there was an entire war in the Pacific. And there was a plane there that was good enough that it was used after a couple of the planes on your list were no longer being issued. It was a fighter/bomber the US continued to build and use in Korea for a very good reason. It was far better at everything than any on that magazine's list.

What was it? If you don't know, you probably think the list is good enough.

BTW, the magazine seemed to blow it on Russian aircraft too. They also had a fighter that was far and away a better fighter than all on the list. It wasn't much as a dive bomber, but then the Ruskies built over 35K Il-2s and didn't need more/better ground attack like they need better fighters. A little hint....... It's production was also continued long after WWII for the same reasons as the plane mentioned above.

It's always amazing when expert authors show so clearly how ignorant they are of the big picture. But of course, WWIIs English speaking allies have spun WWII as if they won it. Sometimes some of them also forget the US in the Pacific.
da Rock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 07:45 AM
  #4
da Rock
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Pfafftown NC
Posts: 11,460
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

BTW, moving past the omissions, there is one plane on the list that shouldn't be there. Actually, two or three, but let's just talk extremes.

The Spitfire never had the range to do spit. If it was tanked up, it couldn't carry spit. When it was used in theaters that had less than perfect conditions it's reliability wasn't worth spit. It couldn't take hits any better than the other liquid cooled engine planes. They never wanted to use it in ground attack if ANYTHING else was available, and most anything was more available as well.

Expert's list? Nah.....
da Rock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 07:50 AM
  #5
da Rock
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Pfafftown NC
Posts: 11,460
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

BTW, the FW190 that was so good at ground attack was about as good a fighter as the Allison engined Mustang had been. Remember, Germany created two separate versions of the FW190. One for ground and one for air.

It would seem that if those experts considered results, the Hurricane would get a mention for having shot down more than all the other British planes combined. ALL the other British ones.
da Rock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 09:50 AM
  #6
ram3500-RCU
 
ram3500-RCU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: n. canton, OH
Posts: 9,544
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Ram-bro

its time for a little friendly discussion....yea right. Flight Journal has put out their top 10 fihters of WWII and their criteria are

1, Constant production capability in combat capability
2. Four Mission capability
3. Pilot Capability
4. Service record

and as listed by Flight Journal Mag they are
7. P38
6. BF-109
5, Yak 1 and 9
4. Mustang
3. Spitfire
2. FW-190
and the best fighter of WW2.......drum roll


1. P47 Thunderbolt


What say you guys and have some fun with it
Where are 8, 9, and 10?

I guess a different line up would accompany each different evaluation criteria, and opinions will always vary on that as well. IMO, all the planes listed here were good airplanes, albeit for various reasons. I also agree that some other good airplanes did not make this list. The Hurricane, Mosquito, Zero, Corsair, and Hellcat are some that come to mind.
ram3500-RCU is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 12:53 PM
  #7
Ram-bro
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bennington, NE
Posts: 5,705
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

They had a top 3 for the Pacific Theatre with the Corssair being #3, Zero #2 and the hellcat #1. If you can find the article , it is a good read. Remember they are talking fighters not so much ground attack like the Stormavik.

Not sure why there isnt a 8,9 or 10
Ram-bro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:23 PM
  #8
WhiteRook
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: westbrook, ME
Posts: 2,054
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

id put the stang a little higher , but the toughest WW2 FIGHTER airframe built was the P-47.
I think i would take the 8 50's over 20 mill cannon , when going against the german 109 and 190 . my opinion
WhiteRook is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:50 PM
  #9
da Rock
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Pfafftown NC
Posts: 11,460
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

OK, with all 10 listed now...............

The Corsair and Thunderbolt were pretty much the cream of the crop. They of course did ground attack better than most dedicated designs which was one major reason the Thunderbolt was considered significantly more useful than the P51. The P51 was really a one trick pony, long range escort. Most of the top fighters were simply faster and relied on boom and zoom, so dog fighting ability really was just for pub arguments (like this one).

However, during the later stages of the war all the major contestants were tried against each other. And of course, advanced training flights often took advantage of 'chance encounters' between flights of different types. The P47s reputation was saved by these. The Corsairs reputation was made by these.

In fact, when the Corsair was being worked up, one of the squadrons published the times they would be in a clear zone 'training' and invited other services squadrons to come do some co-ordinated training. They whipped butt all the time.

If I was choosing what to fly for:

Fighter v fighter. - Corsair, no question about it.
Ground attack. - Corsair, no doubt about it.
Being jumped, out numbered and just wanting to make it home. - flip a coin, either P47 or F4U or F6f
Wanting to feel cool. - Climb in the rack and get some much needed sleep. It was war after all.
Wanting to seem evil - to whom? During every war it was in, the Corsair was the enemy's worst nightmare.
da Rock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:53 PM
  #10
da Rock
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Pfafftown NC
Posts: 11,460
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

If unfortunately, I happened to be a Russian.............

I'd wish to be lucky enought to fly a La-5 or La-7. They were whispered to be clearly better (but not by a lot) than the Spit, Mustang, and might be as good at air-to-air as the P47 and F4U.
da Rock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 07:26 PM
  #11
Ram-bro
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bennington, NE
Posts: 5,705
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

The Russian birds were for the most part Low altitude birds not found to fly and fight well above 20,000 ft. now the Pacific era birds were probably better suited to fly and fight the Russian birds at low altitudes
Ram-bro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 07:43 PM
  #12
Peter_OZ
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 7,740
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

yawn
Peter_OZ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 08:53 PM
  #13
Prop_Washer2
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 677
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

F-22 Raptor, Ahem... Bill Clinton Modification...just don't inhale....!!!

Prop_Washer2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 10:28 PM
  #14
rcguy59
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

Anybody notice the one thing the truly GREAT fighters had in common? Pratt & Whitney's brilliant R-2800 radial.
rcguy59 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 01:29 AM
  #15
ticketec
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,741
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

really?? The Fw-109 had a BMW 801

Thanks

dave
ticketec is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 02:36 AM
  #16
Ram-bro
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bennington, NE
Posts: 5,705
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

the BMW is supposedly a copy of the PW engines....., OK maybe I am kidding
Ram-bro is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 04:34 AM
  #17
rgburrill
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Trumbull, CT
Posts: 1,698
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal


Quote:
ORIGINAL: da Rock

OK, with all 10 listed now...............

The Corsair and Thunderbolt were pretty much the cream of the crop. They of course did ground attack better than most dedicated designs which was one major reason the Thunderbolt was considered significantly more useful than the P51. The P51 was really a one trick pony, long range escort. Most of the top fighters were simply faster and relied on boom and zoom, so dog fighting ability really was just for pub arguments (like this one).

However, during the later stages of the war all the major contestants were tried against each other. And of course, advanced training flights often took advantage of 'chance encounters' between flights of different types. The P47s reputation was saved by these. The Corsairs reputation was made by these.

In fact, when the Corsair was being worked up, one of the squadrons published the times they would be in a clear zone 'training' and invited other services squadrons to come do some co-ordinated training. They whipped butt all the time.

If I was choosing what to fly for:

Fighter v fighter. - Corsair, no question about it.
Ground attack. - Corsair, no doubt about it.
Being jumped, out numbered and just wanting to make it home. - flip a coin, either P47 or F4U or F6f
Wanting to feel cool. - Climb in the rack and get some much needed sleep. It was war after all.
Wanting to seem evil - to whom? During every war it was in, the Corsair was the enemy's worst nightmare.
The problem with the Corsair was that it was flown by a few good men - a very few
rgburrill is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 11:24 AM
  #18
a65l
 
a65l's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: va veach, VA
Posts: 1,963
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

One thing about a top ten list, its never teh same for two people.....

What about the Ki-43 Oscar? Shot down more allied fighters than any other Japanese fighter, difficult target, and a very competitive fighter right up untill the end.
What about an honorable mention for the Hurricane? Workhorse fighter of the British Air force, held the line when there weren't enough Spits...

It's always a popularity contest.

Just my humble opinion
a65l is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 02:12 PM
  #19
da Rock
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Pfafftown NC
Posts: 11,460
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal


Quote:
ORIGINAL: Ram-bro

The Russian birds were for the most part Low altitude birds not found to fly and fight well above 20,000 ft. now the Pacific era birds were probably better suited to fly and fight the Russian birds at low altitudes

well, actually they designed the Mig3 early on to be their high altitude fighter. And when they discovered the problem with specialization they fiddled the design of the La5 to work both ways. It did so well they continued that sucker's lifespan all the way to Indochina.

If you think about it, the original Russian plan was pretty kewl wasnt' it. Basically it was: To hell with those things way up there. They want to stop our Il-2s from shooting up their soldiers they won't do it up there.

They also happened to like our P40s and P39s better than about half their fighters. And did great with them. Opinions are funny things aren't they.

Oh yeah, they didn't like the Hurricane much.
da Rock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 04:13 PM
  #20
rc34074
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Little Elm, TX
Posts: 1,719
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

So I guess all the tv programs that show WW2 pilots who prefer the mustang deliberately ignored the pilots who liked these other planes?

Tell me another story guys.

Ed
rc34074 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 04:25 PM
  #21
rcguy59
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

What about the 56th Fighter Group? Refused P-51's, saying they'd rather keep their Thunderbolts.
rcguy59 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 04:57 PM
  #22
da Rock
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Pfafftown NC
Posts: 11,460
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal


Quote:
ORIGINAL: rc34074

So I guess all the tv programs that show WW2 pilots who prefer the mustang deliberately ignored the pilots who liked these other planes?

Tell me another story guys.

Ed

One problem we have is that only a very few pilots back then got time in more than a couple of fighters. Most flew whatever was being used when they went through Advanced or whatever they called the training they got before they got acclimation time (if they got both). So it really is a problem finding historical film from then that had pilots talking about their favorite who actually weren't talking about the only fighter they knew.

Lots of squadrons moved through different fighters over the course of the war, but at least US pilots rotated home before experiencing just one plane or two at most. So operational pilots on TV programs, if the programs were documentaries, would be like most and thought their plane was the best. What would their moral have been like had they not thought it.

The pilot opinions that could have been valid over more than one or two planes would really be the pilots from the 'other side'. Unfortunately, there weren't a lot of them around in either the ETO or Pacific that made the airwaves.... or film.

The US however, did extensive testing of their own and every flyable captured fighter. The really good detail about that was they were testing operational birds. They usually don't kick out the numbers we usually see published.

These discussions have been going on since that war started. They often start wars of their own.

BTW, I flew my newest Corsair for the 2nd time today. We are really lucky to have the modeling technology we have today. And lucky to have had the ancestors we had. And man that sucker looked good in the air.
da Rock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 01:11 PM
  #23
prop wash
 
prop wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Griffith, IN
Posts: 1,045
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

Well,,,,here we go again.P51
prop wash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 10:36 PM
  #24
bentwings
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St.Paul, MN
Posts: 415
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

daRock.....guess where my handle came from..haha.

My first one was 65 years ago. The last one I flew for 13 years and somewhere still have the flight log over 2 inches thick.

Tell me this isn't the best song ever played haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiW4t...feature=fvwrel

bentwings is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 05:07 PM
  #25
masteromodels
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: north port, FL
Posts: 682
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Top fighters by Flight Journal

I would think if you asked any B-17 crew which was the best fighter we had you would get one answer . We could not have sustained the bombing of Germany if not for the range of the P-51 . The B-17 losses were to great and the war would have dragged on longer. All around but not the best in any one category but for speed, manewverability , fire power and flying at the altitude needed to protect the bombers was very important to the success of disarming the German war machine.


thanks Bob
masteromodels is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
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



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:27 PM.