Planes you love to hate (do not take offence in this thread).

[ICDP]

6 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

The Spitfire takes the lion's share of the credit for the BoB because it was the first plane to make the Luftwaffe look weak. The Hurricane wouldn't have done so. If Hurricanes had been Britain's sole fighter during the German Blitz, RAF casualties would be much higher; German pilots would know of the absolute advantages they had over the Hurricane, and could afford to be more aggressive. Of course the invasion still wouldn't have happened. But that's not the point at all.

 

Sorry for snipping your post but this is exactly my point.  I never once mentioned morale, or giving the LW a bloody nose, or shattering their invincibility.  None of those were even remotely in my main point and I would argue none of them are remotely true as it would have happened even without the Spitfire.  I stated that the Spitfire is credited with winning the Battle of Britain and as such has become THE symbol for the plucky British underdog during their darkest hour.  You yourself have conceded that the LW would still have failed to win the BoB even if the Spitfire didn't exist.  So you are buying into the Spitfire hype it seems. ?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Imho the best moment of the Spitfire wasn't BoB, it was in early-mid 1943 when the Merlin 66 engine was introduced for the LF Mk IX and the Mk VIII. In this configuration it matched the Fw 190A speed at all altitudes except sea level, and it outran the 109G-4/G-6 at pretty much all altitudes, even more if you consider that they had the whole 1.3 ata limitation issue that was solved later that year. Add to that the great climbrate and turning ability of the Spit.

This situation would last until April 1944 when the G-6s started getting MW 50 and in July 44 when the A-8 started getting the increased boost for fighter role.

The LF Mk IXe in BoBP is overshadowed by the other hot rods in that setting, but think that when the LF IXc & VIII came out they had essentially the same performance, facing what you would find in a Battle of Kuban scenario on the German side. If you run that scenario in the sim you can clearly see the Spit has easily the upper hand.

Edited April 29, 2021 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[ICDP]

9 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Imho the best moment of the Spitfire wasn't BoB, it was in early-mid 1943 when the Merlin 66 engine was introduced for the LF Mk IX and the Mk VIII. In this configuration it matched the Fw 190A speed at all altitudes except sea level, and it outran the 109G-4/G-6 at pretty much all altitudes, even more if you consider that they had the whole 1.3 ata limitation issue that was solved later that year. Add to that the great climbrate and turning ability of the Spit.

This situation would last until April 1944 when the G-6s started getting MW 50 and in July 44 when the A-8 started getting the increased boost for fighter role.

The LF Mk IXe in BoBP is overshadowed by the other hot rods in that setting, but think that when the LF IXc & VIII came out they had essentially the same performance, facing what you would find in a Battle of Kuban scenario on the German side. If you run that scenario in the sim you can clearly see the Spit has easily the upper hand.

 

None of which was unique to the Spitfire.  The Typhoon, P47, P51 and P38 all had the same or even better advantages during the same period.  The Spitfire was good, just never the undisputed best amongst it's contempries (not just German).

Edited April 29, 2021 by ICDP

[ICDP]

Folks I'm going to stop bashing the Spitfire now, I think I've made my point.

 

Remember it's all in good fun.  I don't actually "hate" the Spitfire, I find it a very astheatically pleasing plane to look at and have enjoyed doing the templates and skins for it.  I look at all these WWII fighters and remove the ideoligical baggage.  I don't see a Nazi plane when I look at an Fw190, or a communist plane when I admire a MiG3.  All I see are planes form an era I have an interest in.

 

Salute

Edited April 29, 2021 by ICDP

[ciderworm]

The Spitfire legend, it is what it is. Crikey, if I had to bet on one aircraft my 82 year old Mom would recognize, it would be the Spitfire. Are other nations grandmothers the same for the "iconic" planes from their countries? 

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, ICDP said:

I never once mentioned morale, or giving the LW a bloody nose, or shattering their invincibility.  None of those were even remotely in my main point and I would argue none of them are remotely true as it would have happened even without the Spitfire. 

 

I think you're choosing to ignore the nuances of the situation the British were in circa 1940. The Hurricane didn't inspire confidence. Confidence is what was needed.

 

It's rather akin to the Wildcat versus the Hellcat in the Pacific. The Wildcat proved capable of countering the Zero, when used with proper tactics. But the Hellcat could comfortably meet the Zero as equal/superior, and that's when the tide really, decisively turned in the Pacific.

 

Likewise, the Hurricane could cope with the 109; but, not by any stretch of the imagination, face it with confidence.

 

Also, regardless of what he actually meant--remember that Galland famously requested a squadron of Spitfires, not Hurricanes. The Germans clearly respected the Spitfire as an adversary more than the Hurricane. For good reason.

 

1 hour ago, ICDP said:

I look at all these WWII fighters and remove the ideoligical baggage.  I don't see a Nazi plane when I look at an Fw190, or a communist plane when I admire a MiG3.  All I see are planes form an era I have an interest in.

 

On this we can totally agree.

 

I'm not trying to be combative by arguing my points here. I just consider it a debate like any other.

[354thFG_Panda_]

Planes you love to hate: F6F Hellcat.

I like the F4F wildcat, F4U and F8F but I just can not stand the F6F. I know its a very good plane with performance and history. Just generally not a fan of the way it looks. If I had to go off a plane I love to hate in IL2 probably the Bf 110 or tempest.

Edited April 29, 2021 by =[Astra]=theRedPanda

[Feathered_IV]

P-51 Mustang & P-47 Thunderbolt.  
Chiefly because they are the only planes produced by the USA that do not look 100% more attractive while wearing RAF markings. 

[Cybermat47]

37 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

P-51 Mustang & P-47 Thunderbolt.  
Chiefly because they are the only planes produced by the USA that do not look 100% more attractive while wearing RAAF markings. 

Fixed that for you.

[jollyjack]

On 4/28/2021 at 7:54 PM, Bremspropeller said:

  Hide contents

 

Now that's what you'd call ditched ... number 4's time was up. For me i don't like the looks of the MC202, but it's a great plane.

Some Eyetalian cars were just as ugly, but great for driving it:

 

 

it's predecessor too:

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by jollyjack

[Aurora_Stealth]

On 4/29/2021 at 4:17 AM, Jaegermeister said:

It was a good platform for upgrades, and of course the Germans were highly skilled at getting high performance out of their machinery, but why did they never change that stupid cockpit canopy? Can't see diddly out of that square slab of armored glass. Even the K model with it's cool moulded perspex left the thick square canopy supports to keep visibility down well below almost any other late war fighter. 

 

I feel your gripes; the cockpit was also a pretty tight squeeze compared to most others which is something that doesn't help the feeling of claustrophobia if you sit in one for the first time. A typically sized pilot of that time when strapped in and used to flying in it wouldn't be so bothered once familiar though, and according to The Fighter Factory (Virginia beach) apparently the visibility to the front and sides is a lot better than it might look from the outside. I learned recently that you actually have a tad more shoulder room in the '109 compared to the Spitfire due to the curvature of the Spitfire fuselage so I thought that was curious, probably not much difference at arm height though with the side doors closed in the Spit.

 

Agree they should've improved the canopy design sooner; although from what I know - there were workarounds. For example, because your face sits so close to the glass you can easily just bob your head slightly to one side or another to see behind a strut and this is not the issue it at first seems like. You could also loosen the shoulder straps a little to make it easier to look behind the armoured plate and many pilots did remove the top (overhanging piece) like you can in-game although it is still a massive pain in the ass sometimes to check that rear blind-spot.

 

Have to say though, contrary to many people's (very understandable) opinions about it - I actually think the over-engineered canopy probably saved lives; it was mighty awkward but you could eject the whole thing in an emergency rather than faffing with pulling the canopy back at speed. Also, because its so damn robust its great protection if your aircraft was to ever invert itself while on/near the ground for whatever reason... having your head exposed in a bubble canopy isn't a nice thought in that case - getting out of the damn thing after surviving would be a different story though. I'd also feel a bit safer in the greenhouse canopy if someone was spraying me with bullets with those metal reinforcements and thicker glass (also good for pressurising the cockpit). Those bubble canopies also added a bit to drag, and could create distortion effects due to the curvature; a problem when judging distance etc.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[JtD]

Plane I love to hate: The P-39.  Nothing rational about it, I just can't stand it (anymore). It could be Il-2 induced clownwagon trauma.

[blue_max]

Yak 1b, I always have trouble getting that fatty of the ground, and once flying it just doesn't inspire anything in me.

[Herne]

Pilots that flew the spit seemed to love it, the spitfire 944 documentary from an american pilot who flew recon, during the war, with experience on many airframes  was particularly memorable.

Video attached and timestamped for your consideration

 

 

 

[oc2209]

14 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

You could also loosen the shoulder straps a little to make it easier to look behind the armoured plate and many pilots did remove the top (overhanging piece) like you can in-game although it is still a massive pain in the ass sometimes to check that rear blind-spot.

 

It's my standard policy to never fly with extra headrest armor until the improved canopy makes it mandatory. So in other words, from F series to G-6 (I don't fly E in career), I do away with the extra head armor; even when the glass one becomes available. The rear view (sans extra armor) on a 109 is actually pretty generous, especially with the late war canopy. I'm not a fan of the heavy frontal framing post F series, but I can live with it. An ideal 109 canopy for me would be the F forward frame with the Erla rear.

 

It's the Spitfire's rear view that bothers me now (because I'm flying it all the time now). I don't like mirrors because they give you a false sense of security. Consequently I just have the giant headrest deadzone to contend with. To properly clear your six you need to either fishtail when looking over your shoulder, or just do a full roll. Fine out of combat, terrible in combat. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by oc2209

[istari6]

On 4/28/2021 at 11:45 PM, ICDP said:

Assume the Spitfire didn't exist in 1940 and RAF fighter squadrons were fully supplied by Hurricanes.  Simple question, would the LW had won BoB and invaded the UK?  All things considered I would say no and that is why I feel the Spitfire myth is massively exaggerated.  It is made all about about the "Spitfire" and not the complete picture.

 

The claim the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain singlehandedly is a strawman, and not productive.  I don't know anyone with a reasonable knowledge of WWII who would support that claim.  

 

But...

 

Imagine there was no Spitfire.  The Bf 109 had a ~30 mph (?) speed advantage and climb superiority to boot.  If the Spitfires weren't available to tie up the 109 escorts (even as a possible threat), wouldn't the Hurricane loss rate have jumped significantly?  There comes a point where sufficient pilot losses leads to loss of air superiority, and that was the precondition to an attack by the Kriegsmarine and Wehrmacht. Without sufficient Hurricane fighter cover, I'm not sure the Royal Navy is a serious threat to the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine.  

 

My point is that while it took Chain Home, the Spitfire AND the threat of the Royal Navy to win the Battle of Britain, I'm not sure you can win it with just 2 of 3.  

Edited April 30, 2021 by istari6

[oc2209]

15 minutes ago, istari6 said:

My point is that while it took Chain Home, the Spitfire AND the threat of the Royal Navy to win the Battle of Britain, I'm not sure you can win it with just 2 of 3.  

 

The problem with believing a German invasion was ever remotely possible, is that the logistics of moving huge amounts of materials across the Channel--in an efficient manner--is something the Germans were incapable of circa 1940.

 

If I'm not mistaken, they had to strip river boats and coastal vessels from all over Europe to assemble what invasion fleet they had, and that was easily attacked and damaged by the British as it was being assembled. It would've been quite easy for the British to launch a maximum effort attack on just the transport armada alone, and the Germans would be hard pressed to stop its destruction. German air superiority was numerically not the equal of the Allies' during D-Day. Nor was their transport production capacity anywhere close, such that they could afford to lose many.

 

If it got down to kamikaze time, the British could send out a large portion of their fleet right into the midst of the German armada, plus bombers, and utterly annihilate the Germans. Even with catastrophic losses, it would effectively end any chances of a German invasion until such time as the Germans could build up a new transport fleet. That would probably take years. By which time US industry would be nearing its Arsenal of Democracy overkill mode.

 

A much more interesting alt-history scenario would be if Germany never attacked Russia; never launched the Blitz in 1940; stopped all surface fleet construction and put all ship production capacity into building an invasion fleet; pull out all stops to increase Fw-190 production; gather all this up, and then try to invade Britain in earnest sometime in 1942.

 

I think that attempt would stand a much better chance of succeeding than anything in 1940.

[Mtnbiker1998]

I'll bite on this one!

 

I can't stand Yaks, any of them. Russian planes in general I usually only tolerate, but god do I hate the Yak in particular. I hate the way it looks, I hate the cockpit layout, I hate the pilot workload, I hate the way it flies.

 

And it seems like this thread has already beaten that horse to death, but I'll just go ahead and say I don't like Spitfires either! lol.

[oc2209]

45 minutes ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

 but god do I hate the Yak in particular. I hate the way it looks

 

*pets 1/72 scale diecast Yak-3 model*

 

Don't listen to him, Yakusha. He knows not what he says.

[ICDP]

7 hours ago, istari6 said:

 

The claim the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain singlehandedly is a strawman, and not productive.  I don't know anyone with a reasonable knowledge of WWII who would support that claim.  

 

But...

 

Imagine there was no Spitfire.  The Bf 109 had a ~30 mph (?) speed advantage and climb superiority to boot.  If the Spitfires weren't available to tie up the 109 escorts (even as a possible threat), wouldn't the Hurricane loss rate have jumped significantly?  There comes a point where sufficient pilot losses leads to loss of air superiority, and that was the precondition to an attack by the Kriegsmarine and Wehrmacht. Without sufficient Hurricane fighter cover, I'm not sure the Royal Navy is a serious threat to the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine.  

 

My point is that while it took Chain Home, the Spitfire AND the threat of the Royal Navy to win the Battle of Britain, I'm not sure you can win it with just 2 of 3.  

 

I was never referring to aviation enthusiasts thinking that, but the wider uninitiated public.  Although you do prove there are some enthusiasts who still feel the Spitfire played some instrumental role that the Hurricane couldn't, yet this is not based on logic.  Your premise that without the Spitfire the UK was doomed is not borne out by facts.  The Hurricane was the mainstay of the RAF at the time and coped more than well enough, because we see how many Hurricane squadrons more than held their own.  303 Polish squadron was the highest scoring of BoB and they did it with the Hurricane.

 

Was the Spitfire Iconic, of course it was and is.  Was Britain doomed in 1940 without it, well that to me is a ridiculous notion really.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Just think, without the Spitfire they could have put those excess Merlins in the Westland Whirlwind.

 

Now that would have been a real world beater.

[Dragon1-1]

I've had numerous problems with the Spitfire. Between the oversensitive elevator, widely set wing cannons with not enough ammo, weak wing MGs set even further down the wing, and atrocious ground handling due to lacking a tailwheel lock, I couldn't get into the Spits for a long time. I've since got better at hitting with the wing guns, and in particular started using the MGs for deflection shooting, where they have a chance to hit something important. It's still not my top choice of aircraft, though, even if I can compensate for its flaws to a degree. 

[ICDP]

5 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Just think, without the Spitfire they could have put those excess Merlins in the Westland Whirlwind.

 

Now that would have been a real world beater.

 

It would never have happened at that time as the Whirwind was designed to use the Peregrine engine and the Merlin was too big.  They did eventually make the high altitude Westland Welkin wih Merlin engines.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Welkin

Edited May 1, 2021 by ICDP

[Guest deleted@83466]

Tempest.  Great Plane, and one of my favorites.  But with that thing on the chin, it just doesn't have the cool lines like some of the others, and I actually think it's pretty hideous looking.  I'm sure I'll feel the same about the Typhoon.

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I've had numerous problems with the Spitfire. Between the oversensitive elevator, widely set wing cannons with not enough ammo, weak wing MGs set even further down the wing, and atrocious ground handling due to lacking a tailwheel lock, I couldn't get into the Spits for a long time. I've since got better at hitting with the wing guns, and in particular started using the MGs for deflection shooting, where they have a chance to hit something important.

 

I had pretty much the same issues with the Spit prior to the XIV. I could see the advantages in its capabilities, but the drawbacks kept me from being enthusiastic about Spits in general.

 

The XIV, in my opinion, is less 'floaty' with its elevator feeling, which makes aiming easier. I've also learned that the .50s are pretty good pilot killers when you're trying to save cannon ammo. I never fly with .303s; they're absolutely worthless in my mind.

 

Ultimately what I've learned is that to become proficient with any plane, you have to stop flying other planes (in the short term). Unless you're some kind of savant, switching between planes with different guns, nose versus wing mountings, will confuse your reflexes. Flying the same plane consistently will eventually result in a notable improvement, regardless of how uncomfortable you initially were with its weapons.

 

My Spit XIV kills per sortie has now surpassed my Tempest career's, which is something I never expected to see based on my Spit IX performance.

[ICDP]

3 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I had pretty much the same issues with the Spit prior to the XIV. I could see the advantages in its capabilities, but the drawbacks kept me from being enthusiastic about Spits in general.

 

The XIV, in my opinion, is less 'floaty' with its elevator feeling, which makes aiming easier. I've also learned that the .50s are pretty good pilot killers when you're trying to save cannon ammo. I never fly with .303s; they're absolutely worthless in my mind.

 

Ultimately what I've learned is that to become proficient with any plane, you have to stop flying other planes (in the short term). Unless you're some kind of savant, switching between planes with different guns, nose versus wing mountings, will confuse your reflexes. Flying the same plane consistently will eventually result in a notable improvement, regardless of how uncomfortable you initially were with its weapons.

 

My Spit XIV kills per sortie has now surpassed my Tempest career's, which is something I never expected to see based on my Spit IX performance.

 

Lol, you should try the Spitfire IX in DCS, now that is an extrememely sensitive and elastic FM.

[oc2209]

5 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

Lol, you should try the Spitfire IX in DCS, now that is an extrememely sensitive and elastic FM.

 

To an unrealistic extent, do you think?

 

You can definitely over-control a Spit in BoX, but it feels within the realm of plausibility.

[ICDP]

I would not be able to tell, though I am aware of the "harder is better" mantra not always beign true.  What I do know is that sotck for stock the Spitfire IX in DCS feels a lot more sensitive.

[No.332.Animal_NO]

27 minutes ago, ICDP said:

Lol, you should try the Spitfire IX in DCS, now that is an extrememely sensitive and elastic FM.

I do enjoy the DCS Warbirds but they are sensitive to the input. Now, for the DCS P47 I am wondering if they even modelled the rotational torque on the Z-axis at all, as it bobs too easily left and right on that axis. Or is it simply that IL2 is somehow damping our inputs under the proverbial "hood" of the game making the response more playable?

 

As for the plane I love to hate:

P51. I'ts as boring as a Skoda Octavia.

Edited May 1, 2021 by No.332.Animal_Mother

[Dakpilot]

Nope, you is all wrong (Spitfire haters) ?

 

Spitfire definitely deserves its reputation. 

 

When the US came to Europe what did they fly? SPITFIRES 

 

When the US went to Africa they brought P-40's but made sure the one they brought had SPITFIRE engines

 

And as for Spit vs Hurri

 

Spitfire lineage = World famous speed record A/C Supermarine S6

 

Hurricane lineage = the Hawker Humpback (seriously the first Hawker) or perhaps the the Hawker Hedgehog or even the Hawker Tomtit... Or Hawker Hoopoe

 

See a legend needs a good name and lineage ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Both fleets of the Royal Hungarian Air Force and the Polish Air Force, sending their boys off to fight in those embarrassments was a war crime.

[40plus]

P47, both variants. It's fat, it's heavy, it's uglier than hell and flies the same.

[Rjel]

I've always enjoyed the ragging about the P-51 on every flight sim forum I've ever been on. But that's okay. To each his own. I'm certain, considering how opinionated most Americans were then and are now, that the history books are chuck full of WWII USAAF pilot accounts bitching about having to fly the Mustang in combat and its many failures. I know one of these days I'll run across one....

[Denum]

4 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

Nope, you is all wrong (Spitfire haters) ?

 

Spitfire definitely deserves its reputation.  

 

 

 

I agree, it served on every single front outside of the Aleutian islands. 

 

It's easy to dissect the Spitfires role after the fact. But during the Blitz it became a symbol of British resolve and endurance

Eventually victory.

 

That "Dewey eyed reverence" won't fade anytime soon.

 

 

[ICDP]

8 hours ago, Denum said:

 

I agree, it served on every single front outside of the Aleutian islands. 

 

It's easy to dissect the Spitfires role after the fact. But during the Blitz it became a symbol of British resolve and endurance

Eventually victory.

 

That "Dewey eyed reverence" won't fade anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

Being the glamorous one does nothing to change the fact it did no more to win the BoB than the Hurricane, radar, the channel, the Royal Navy, bomber command etc.  Ironically this "Spitfire" myth is undervaluing the other factors that played their part in BoB.  Endurance and resolve do not inevitably lead to victory.  Look at the Battle for France in 1940, so it wasn't Blitzkrieg that won it so convincingly?  It was that German endurance and resolve was stronger then the combined French and British endurance and resolve?  Or did the magical properties of British endurance and resolve only kick in during the Battle of Britain?  Does British endurance and resolve have more magical properties than German, Italian, Japanese, American, Russian, Polish, Czech, Australian, Canadian or French endurance and resolve?

 

I'm sure Hitler and his cronies had plenty of endurance and resolve as the T34 tanks rolled over the rubble strewn streets of Berlin in May 1945.

 

Apologies for the very sarcastic response but please read your post and tell me why you think it makes logical sense to attribute "Eventual victory" in the BoB to the Spitfire?  If the Spitfire didn't exist then the Hurricane would be the symbol chosen for the plucky British spirit and defiance.  The fact the Spitfire was chosen as the symbol of victory does not make it the reason for victory.  Some people tend to conflate the two that's my entire point.

Edited May 2, 2021 by ICDP

[Dakpilot]

If Supermarine for some reason had not existed and there had been no Schneider trophy entries and only Hurricanes were fielded in BoB I would imagine the outcome would have been different ?

 

Cheers 

[ICDP]

18 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

If Supermarine for some reason had not existed and there had been no Schneider trophy entries and only Hurricanes were fielded in BoB I would imagine the outcome would have been different ?

 

Cheers 

 

Key word being "imagine", but we are dealing with reality

 

Joking not aside.  Wasn't it quicker to build a super awesome Hurricane than a poopy Spitfire?  So if all those pointless Spitfire factories had been super awesome Hurricane factories then the Bob would have been over before it even began because Germany would have been too afraid.

 

Her Goering, vee cannot invade Britain, zey are producing 2 Hurricanes for every Spitfire zey could have had.

Vat is zis Spitfire?

I don't know, it is ze mythical British fighter I just imagined in my head.

Edited May 2, 2021 by ICDP

[Dakpilot]

Hence the reality of the prime RAF air superiority fighter being seen to win the battle. 

 

When the USAF Squadrons arrived in Europe they had no fighter to compete, so they used the Spitfire not the Hurricane 

 

?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[ICDP]

29 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Hence the reality of the prime RAF air superiority fighter being seen to win the battle. 

 

When the USAF Squadrons arrived in Europe they had no fighter to compete, so they used the Spitfire not the Hurricane 

 

?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

And not long after they realised how much it sucked and changed to P38s and P47s.

[Dakpilot]

And when they sucked even more they had to replace them with a Spitfire engined US aircraft ?

 

I am probably a little biased my instructor who sent me solo was an ex Spitfire pilot and my first Captain was also ex Spitfire pilot ?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot