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

[ICDP]

Lol

 

I think I just can't get over the monumental waste of good engines there was.  I mean for every two Spitfires they could have built a Mosquito. ?

Edited May 2, 2021 by ICDP

[BlitzPig_EL]

If I may add more 100 Low Lead on this dumpster fire...

 

? 

 

It took the Packard Motor Company to tighten up the specs on the Merlin to make it suitable for mass production, so that we all had enough of them to show Adolf, Benito, and Tojo the way out.

 

Just 'sayin.

 

In all seriousness, every combatant produced an iconic fighter that has come to symbolize their efforts in the titanic struggle that was the Second World War.

 

Personally, I appreciate all of them.

WW2 produced a group of aircraft that will never be equalled in their ability to please the eye, and stir the soul.  When you hear a Merlin, or a V1710, or a DB, or an R2800 or Sakei go over, you know it something special, and not just another cattle car in the sky.

[Ghost666]

3 hours 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 

Was that because the Spit was better or that the Brits would not give up any of their AWESOME Hurricanes? 

[Denum]

5 hours ago, ICDP said:

 

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

I don't think it had anything to do with the Spitfires capabilities in terms of a air superiority fighter.

 

The USA was running a drastically different game at that point. The spit wasn't capable of running escorts deep into enemy territory. 

 

As we're aware it was the answer to outside forces. Range didn't happen to be a requirement at the time. 

 

 

 

As far as the Battle of France. When you quite literally share a border with the enemy you're going to have a bad time. The British had the luxury of 50ish KM of water isolating them. And we all know the British didn't take too many chances unless they needed to. They did sink the remainder of the French fleet after the country fell. Not to mention it was two very different battles.

 

At the end Germany was defended by an extremely depleted army and child soldiers with 2 nations racing for its heart. 

 

The Spitfire certainly played an enormous role in BoB, otherwise it would have been the hurricane that people adored. The Hurricanes out numbered the Spitfire 2 to 1.

 

There's a reason it's known around the world and still is..

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

If I may add more 100 Low Lead on this dumpster fire...

 

?

 

It took the Packard Motor Company to tighten up the specs on the Merlin to make it suitable for mass production, so that we all had enough of them to show Adolf, Benito, and Tojo the way out.

 

Just 'sayin.

 

In all seriousness, every combatant produced an iconic fighter that has come to symbolize their efforts in the titanic struggle that was the Second World War.

 

Personally, I appreciate all of them.

WW2 produced a group of aircraft that will never be equalled in their ability to please the eye, and stir the soul.  When you hear a Merlin, or a V1710, or a DB, or an R2800 or Sakei go over, you know it something special, and not just another cattle car in the sky.

 

Innovation is rarely a one pony show! 

 

 

 

[DD_Crash]

About Spitfires and everthing else

 

[=621=Samikatz]

5 hours ago, ICDP said:

Lol

 

I think I just can't get over the monumental waste of good engines there was.  I mean for every two Spitfires they could have built a Mosquito. ?

 

Now I suddenly want a Griffon-powered Mosquito...

[Denum]

I think the closet we got to that was the Bristol Brigand with twin Centaurus.

 

That's a whole lot of engine!

[Dakpilot]

As far as I know you can't fit a girl in a Hurricane cockpit

 

but you can in a SPITFIRE 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Mtnbiker1998]

Kinda disappointed this thread just turned into a spitfire post, I was really excited to hear about all the other planes people hate! haha. 

 

I mainly wanted to hear other people talk about how much they also hate Yaks. 

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Kinda disappointed this thread just turned into a spitfire post, I was really excited to hear about all the other planes people hate! haha. 

 

I mainly wanted to hear other people talk about how much they also hate Yaks. 

 

I always roll my eyes when I'm reading a WWII article/book, and the P-51 is described as a 'war-winning' design. 

 

War-slightly-shortening is more like it. The end of WWII was decided at many points that had nothing to do with the existence of the P-51. Including but not limited to: Germany's failure to capture Moscow; Germany's failure to capture Stalingrad; Germany's failure at Kursk; Germany's failure in North Africa; the destruction of Germany's U-boat fleet after 1943; Germany's failure to stop British night bombing; Germany's failure to discern how the British had broken the Enigma code; and on and on.

 

Now, having said all that, I still wouldn't say I hate the P-51. It marginally hastened a fait accompli at best, but like the Spitfire, it gets huge style points.

 

As for Yaks, I don't think you're going to get many people who want to roast it. Mainly because the Yak's never played up to Western audiences as the greatest thing since sliced bread. A plane only really becomes 'hate-able' when it's badly overhyped, in my opinion. The Yak was just a shaggy little steppe workhorse, never given the star treatment (again, in the West at least).

[Dragon1-1]

On 5/1/2021 at 9:54 PM, oc2209 said:

 

To an unrealistic extent, do you think?

 

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

I think it's down to how DCS does the elevator axis. IRL, the long stick and higher forces than commercially available fight sim sticks made the Spitfire quite controllable, but the usable stick throw was small compared to its mechanical limits. I actually think it's Il-2 that "simplifies" it by reducing the overall throw, but I don't know for sure. Ground handling is certainly harder in DCS, Il-2 probably has a more gradual increase in braking power with a button bound to the brake (people with an analog brake lever say it makes things better). 

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

War-slightly-shortening is more like it. The end of WWII was decided at many points that had nothing to do with the existence of the P-51. Including but not limited to: Germany's failure to capture Moscow; Germany's failure to capture Stalingrad; Germany's failure at Kursk; Germany's failure in North Africa; the destruction of Germany's U-boat fleet after 1943; Germany's failure to stop British night bombing; Germany's failure to discern how the British had broken the Enigma code; and on and on.

The P-51 might not have cost Germans the war, but it certainly "won" it for the US, by giving them air superiority. It could handle the German fighters better than the P-47, and had the range to do so from out of UK. Germany would've lost anyway, but it would've lost to the Soviets, and the US might have entered the Cold War on a much worse footing than it actually did. I think that's why Soviet contribution is often (undeservedly) overlooked in the West - they were allies, but they sure weren't friends, even back then. 

 

It did disappoint me a bit when it comes to actually fighting in it, but then, I do like fighters that turn well and hit hard, and P-51 isn't exactly one of these. Oh, and wing guns. Funnily enough, that's why I like the Yaks a lot. LaGG-3 gets about as much love from me as it did from real Soviet pilots, but my feelings toward it are more pity than hate.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I think it's down to how DCS does the elevator axis.

 

The P-51 might not have cost Germans the war, but it certainly "won" it for the US, by giving them air superiority.

 

It did disappoint me a bit when it comes to actually fighting in it, but then, I do like fighters that turn well and hit hard, and P-51 isn't exactly one of these. Oh, and wing guns. Funnily enough, that's why I like the Yaks a lot. LaGG-3 gets about as much love from me as it did from real Soviet pilots, but my feelings toward it are more pity than hate.

 

Interesting points about the DCS versus IL-2 controls. Sounds plausible.

As for the P-51's influence on where the Iron Curtain fell, I don't think it's that simple. By the time the P-51 was operating in useful numbers, American tactics had already improved vastly between the marginal failures of 1943 and the wholesale Luftwaffe slaughter that was to be 1944. The P-47 operating with much more aggressive '44 tactics was a totally different fighter than it was in '43. Beyond that, Luftwaffe tactical bombing was never going to slow down the Western Allies' advance into Germany, even if the Allies had totally lost air superiority (which, even with the P-47 alone, would never have happened). Recall how ineffectual the airfield attacks were during Bodenplatte; because the Luftwaffe had lost all tactical quality by then, both as an offensive and defensive force. Germany was incapable of precision-bombing enemies into submission even as far back as Kursk.

The only measurable impact the P-51 would've had was in allowing bombers to safely reach Germany's synthetic oil production centers. And, in depriving Germany of fuel, it weakened their ability to fight the Russians just as much as it weakened them against the West. I'd call that a draw.

The speed of Russia's advance into Germany was mainly limited by their own logistical difficulties. It was a relatively simple matter of too much crap being funneled through a small area with annihilated infrastructure.

About LaGGs: agreed. I don't even like the La-5 that much, honestly, in terms of handling. The Yak flies like a trainer. I'm thinking the Yak-3 (or 9U) will be hands-down the best low-alt dogfighter in the game; because it will finally have what current Yaks lack: speed.

[Leady_Brickov]

On 4/29/2021 at 5:54 AM, ICDP said:

 

It's like they thought, what can we do to make this as unaerodynamic as possible.

 

But strangely the Wellesley wasn't, despite it's dubious looks.

 

Quote Wikipedia " A high-profile demonstration of the aircraft's capabilities was conducted during early November 1938 via a flight of three Wellesley's that flew non-stop for two days from Ismailia, Egypt to Darwin, Australia, a distance of 7,162 miles (11,526 km), setting a world distance record in the process. "

 

It the held long range bombing records in its service in the Middle East until the American B17 entered service. Crazy Huh? 

 

I've got to join the Spit and Pony haters club ?

Edited May 2, 2021 by Leady_Brickov
fixing context

[Cybermat47]

13 minutes ago, Leady_Brickov said:

 

But strangely the Wellesley wasn't, despite it's dubious looks.

 

Quote Wikipedia " A high-profile demonstration of the aircraft's capabilities was conducted during early November 1938 via a flight of three Wellesley's that flew non-stop for two days from Ismailia, Egypt to Darwin, Australia, a distance of 7,162 miles (11,526 km), setting a world distance record in the process. "

 

Did the British really need to inflict it on us? ?

[=MERCS=One_Called_Kane]

On 5/2/2021 at 1:05 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

The P-51 might not have cost Germans the war, but it certainly "won" it for the US, by giving them air superiority. It could handle the German fighters better than the P-47, and had the range to do so from out of UK. Germany would've lost anyway, but it would've lost to the Soviets, and the US might have entered the Cold War on a much worse footing than it actually did. I think that's why Soviet contribution is often (undeservedly) overlooked in the West - they were allies, but they sure weren't friends, even back then. 

Overall the P-51 was probably a better fighter, but a lot of the gutting of the Luftwaffe came at the hands of the P-47. Big Week was mainly the Jug's show, for example. The Mustang was desirable because of it's range, and was notable because it was a long-range escort fighter capable of competing with (not necessarily outclassing) the enemy's interceptors.

 

Almost 80% of German military losses were on the Eastern Front. Germany did lose to the Soviets. Not exclusively, and the Western Allies contributions were not insignificant, but by 1943 the writing was on the wall.

[oc2209]

47 minutes ago, =MERCS=One_Called_Kane said:

The Mustang was desirable because of it's range, and was notable because it was a long-range escort fighter capable of competing with (not necessarily outclassing) the enemy's interceptors.

 

The P-51's chief advantage (in combat, as opposed to the strategic value of its range) was raw speed. Speed forgives a lot of flaws. I would say, pound for pound, the P-51 outclassed the 109 because of its speed and ease of use (more modern design features). Just because expert 109 pilots could sometimes outfly P-51s doesn't mean much; one of the key values of the P-51 is that it didn't require expert pilots with 500+ sorties' worth of experience to increase its survivability in combat. That's arguably the greatest strength of all successful American designs.

 

The Fw-190 is much closer to American design philosophy than the 109; which explains why it was probably much more popular with young pilots after 1943. Pre-war Luftwaffe pilots had the luxury of learning the 109's quirks slowly.

 

On a side note: just because the P-51 doesn't have a lot of wow-factor in a sim (no cannons, no 16 second turn rate, no 25m/s climb rate, etc), doesn't mean I want to bash it. I think a lot of people might feel it's overrated because its real life advantages don't translate into a sim nearly as obviously as they would have back in 1944.

[Mtnbiker1998]

23 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

The P-51's chief advantage (in combat, as opposed to the strategic value of its range) was raw speed. Speed forgives a lot of flaws. I would say, pound for pound, the P-51 outclassed the 109 because of its speed and ease of use (more modern design features). Just because expert 109 pilots could sometimes outfly P-51s doesn't mean much; one of the key values of the P-51 is that it didn't require expert pilots with 500+ sorties' worth of experience to increase its survivability in combat. That's arguably the greatest strength of all successful American designs.

 

The Fw-190 is much closer to American design philosophy than the 109; which explains why it was probably much more popular with young pilots after 1943. Pre-war Luftwaffe pilots had the luxury of learning the 109's quirks slowly.

 

On a side note: just because the P-51 doesn't have a lot of wow-factor in a sim (no cannons, no 16 second turn rate, no 25m/s climb rate, etc), doesn't mean I want to bash it. I think a lot of people might feel it's overrated because its real life advantages don't translate into a sim nearly as obviously as they would have back in 1944.

Ease  of use is a HUGE thing that doesn't get brought up nearly often enough, something that is really overlooked especially in a game like IL-2 with simplified systems and controls (not to mention the fact we're sitting at our desks with hotas', not in the real cockpit), and also something that American designers have excelled at since ww2 all the way up to today. Cockpit layouts, ergonomics, Automatization of systems, Hell, even the way the landing gear is laid out to make taxiing easier, things of that nature. 

[=621=Samikatz]

One thing the American fighters almost always had over their foes is the ability to multirole with little issue. A P-51 can fight on level footing with the best Luftwaffe props, and then the next day you can bolt racks onto it and carry an impressive amount of ordnance much further than a 109 could ever fly. While that doesn't have much respect in these airquake comparisons, it has a lot of value in winning battles. Same with the 47, 38, F6F, F4U, etc

[BlitzPig_EL]

Yup.  Even the P40 excelled in the attack role.

[oc2209]

5 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Ease  of use is a HUGE thing that doesn't get brought up nearly often enough, something that is really overlooked especially in a game like IL-2 with simplified systems and controls (not to mention the fact we're sitting at our desks with hotas', not in the real cockpit), and also something that American designers have excelled at since ww2 all the way up to today. Cockpit layouts, ergonomics, Automatization of systems, Hell, even the way the landing gear is laid out to make taxiing easier, things of that nature. 

 

I forget the exact quote, but I recall reading something about 5 or 6 different levers needing to be adjusted to change the engine settings in a Russian plane, because they lacked automation. I would think it'd impair your ability to use precise power adjustments during maneuvers. So yeah, I have no illusions about which planes would be easier to fly (and survive with) in real life. American planes ostensibly offer the highest chances of living to see the end of the war. I consider German and British roughly equal in survivability, followed by Russian and Japanese.

 

I like the 109 in the sim because I can get a lot of kills with it (versus AI anyway). The actual flying part of it isn't very enjoyable. The poor roll rate is catastrophically bad at low speeds (150 MPH), and also at anything nearing 300 MPH or higher. That limits your defensive options considerably when bounced. You can pretty much pull straight up or dive straight down; the latter of which would prove fatal in real life once the P-47 was on the scene. Another factor we don't have to deal with is the heavy controls of the 109, which beyond being frustrating while being shot at, would also tire you out quickly.

 

By contrast, the Yak-9's much easier to fly, but its armament is inferior to the 109's (as well as its ammo load), and it lacks the necessary acceleration to be a truly potent dogfighter. It's good but not great overall. I struggle to get kills in it at the same rate as the 109, all other factors in the game being equal.

 

If I was forced to fly any non-American plane in real life, I'd probably go with either the Spitfire or the Fw-190. And if forced to pick between those, I'd probably go with the Spit because, like the AI, my favorite response when attacked is to turn.

[BlitzPig_EL]

There certainly is a disconnect between what we see and do in the sim, and the reality of fighting in the air in WW2, and this discussion of pilot focused needs and ergonomics really hits the nail on the head.  Easing pilot workload, and hence lower task saturation, is one of the key design elements of a really good design.  Yes, the Germans had automated engine controls, and these were a definite advancement, but they were installed on a very old airframe (Bf109) design that dates to an older time than the late war Allied aircraft.  In their quest for all out speed in the 1930s, the Bf109 was severely compromised when it came to pilot focused needs. Cramped cockpit, poor visibility, heavy controls, horrible ground handling, and low endurance.  Great for a racing plane, not so good for winning a war on a continental, much less a global, scale.

Edited May 4, 2021 by BlitzPig_EL

[Aurora_Stealth]

8 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I forget the exact quote, but I recall reading something about 5 or 6 different levers needing to be adjusted to change the engine settings in a Russian plane, because they lacked automation. I would think it'd impair your ability to use precise power adjustments during maneuvers. So yeah, I have no illusions about which planes would be easier to fly (and survive with) in real life. American planes ostensibly offer the highest chances of living to see the end of the war. I consider German and British roughly equal in survivability, followed by Russian and Japanese.

 

I like the 109 in the sim because I can get a lot of kills with it (versus AI anyway). The actual flying part of it isn't very enjoyable. The poor roll rate is catastrophically bad at low speeds (150 MPH), and also at anything nearing 300 MPH or higher. That limits your defensive options considerably when bounced. You can pretty much pull straight up or dive straight down; the latter of which would prove fatal in real life once the P-47 was on the scene. Another factor we don't have to deal with is the heavy controls of the 109, which beyond being frustrating while being shot at, would also tire you out quickly.

 

By contrast, the Yak-9's much easier to fly, but its armament is inferior to the 109's (as well as its ammo load), and it lacks the necessary acceleration to be a truly potent dogfighter. It's good but not great overall. I struggle to get kills in it at the same rate as the 109, all other factors in the game being equal.

 

If I was forced to fly any non-American plane in real life, I'd probably go with either the Spitfire or the Fw-190. And if forced to pick between those, I'd probably go with the Spit because, like the AI, my favorite response when attacked is to turn.

 

I think some of these aircraft are excellent to fly (often referred to as "pilots" aircraft) but it does (like you say) miss the point if its not doing its job.. and an inferior gun platform which doesn't translate in combat isn't exactly a poster for success. Some people just want to enjoy the flying experience, others want survivability and some want to maximise the number of aircraft they shoot down. This is somewhat reflected in long-term statistics (not always accurately but it gives a flavour with enough time and conditions).

 

It's also a bit down to perspective, and yeah it departs from real life - do you want the best chance to survive [the war]? or do you want the best chance of getting kills? [defensive vs offensive traits] or do you want to be the most flexible over time for future missions? or do you want to complete the most operational objectives/highest contribution to the war effort (e.g. escort, ground support) - these are rarely all advantageous in a single aircraft. Some are more flexible than others.

 

It's a good example of where the P-47 really diverges from the experience (esp. online) - like you say the pilots had quite a good chance of coming back or at least surviving while under very, very hostile conditions (incl. low level heavy flak and fighters) - and it's hard to ignore that this was needing to be done to pave the way for success later with... aircraft like the P-51. The irony is that the P-51 had very high survivability in air-to-air due to its speed and agility, but the highest loss rates (A-36 version) of any US aircraft in ground attack and could be knocked out with literally between one and three stray low calibre bullets in that single (easy to hit) radiator and that's it - you're done. This highlights clearly where being specialised can be a major drawback when looking for something flexible and survivable under different conditions - and you need that over time if you want to get through a war.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I would probably make quite different choices of aircraft in real life... and bet that if people were doing this and had a choice - their needle is likely to move much more towards survivability (defensive traits) than how aggressive you can be on the attack. It's also why you hear people mention for example the Bf 109 G, Spitfire XIV or Tempest V being too much of a "hot potato" in real life - they're afraid the aircraft will kill them one day and you only make that mistake once; there's no more victories being made when your dead.

 

I've heard from pilots comparing these all, that the clipped wing Merlin powered Spitfires being described as the most survivable fighters, because they are generally maneuverable against most opponents they come up against and have (enough) performance, generally docile and easy handling (ground and air) and are robust (enough) to give the pilot confidence under typical conditions while being across the longest span of service. However, there's no doubting they are lackluster as gun platforms which is why they sometimes get an average combat fighting reputation... especially in-game and online.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[zan64]

On 5/3/2021 at 4:01 AM, oc2209 said:

 

I always roll my eyes when I'm reading a WWII article/book, and the P-51 is described as a 'war-winning' design. 

 

War-slightly-shortening is more like it. The end of WWII was decided at many points that had nothing to do with the existence of the P-51. Including but not limited to: Germany's failure to capture Moscow; Germany's failure to capture Stalingrad; Germany's failure at Kursk; Germany's failure in North Africa; the destruction of Germany's U-boat fleet after 1943; Germany's failure to stop British night bombing; Germany's failure to discern how the British had broken the Enigma code; and on and on.

 

Now, having said all that, I still wouldn't say I hate the P-51. It marginally hastened a fait accompli at best, but like the Spitfire, it gets huge style points.

 

As for Yaks, I don't think you're going to get many people who want to roast it. Mainly because the Yak's never played up to Western audiences as the greatest thing since sliced bread. A plane only really becomes 'hate-able' when it's badly overhyped, in my opinion. The Yak was just a shaggy little steppe workhorse, never given the star treatment (again, in the West at least).

American trucks on the Eastern front is what won the war, at least according to Khrushchev in his autobiography. when i was younger i used to love to hate the P-51 because it was popular but now at the grand age of 32 if I could wish for any plane to own it may be a P-51. It just looks ******** good, performs good, has a good history.  but i hear you on the intolerable blahblahblah won the war popcorn documentaries that the history channel was pumping out 20 years ago - no idea if that's still the case haven't watched television in a decade.

 

edit: I really dont hate any aircraft being a person that loves aviation, but a mosquito really does not interest me whatsoever

Edited May 4, 2021 by Esel_kong

[Diggun]

5 minutes ago, Esel_kong said:

but a mosquito really does not interest me whatsoever

Can I have yours then please?

[PatrickAWlson]

On 4/28/2021 at 2:44 PM, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

Maybe the Mustang? Not because of the plane itself but the fact that so many ignorant fanbois acted like it was the best fighter of WW2 just because. I love to dominate it at low alt and shoot it down and go like : oh thats the best fighter of ww2 right? There goes your american propaganda.

 

I know that was mostly tongue in cheek, but the Mustang to me is one hell of a design feat.  It's not that it was better than a 190, 109, Spitfire, etc. in the mythical one on one duel.  it's that it was as good as it was while being able to stay in the air for eight hours.  That is what makes it so impressive.  

 

Back on topic ... not sure that I have much to add.  I don't know that I hate any of these planes.  I think that what I dislike is similar to your point: anything with an overly intense following that will brook no argument that disputes the obvious superiority of their favorite.  Meanwhile the FW190A is obviously superior to everything, so not sure what the argument is about. 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

22 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I know that was mostly tongue in cheek, but the Mustang to me is one hell of a design feat.  It's not that it was better than a 190, 109, Spitfire, etc. in the mythical one on one duel.  it's that it was as good as it was while being able to stay in the air for eight hours.  That is what makes it so impressive.  

 

 

 

What made the Mustang so good is was it was supposed to be a long range high alt plane and its exactly how it was used most of the time. Sometimes its not the plane itself but the way it was used too. Imagine the mustang as a low alt interceptor. The MiG3 is the perfect example. It was designed as a high alt interceptor but its usage didnt reflect that at all. Used as a ground attack plane it was mediocre and only served to exposed its weakness. 

 

You have to design a plane for a reason and stick to it. Else, no matter how well balanced and advanced your plane is, results might be underwhelming.

[=MERCS=One_Called_Kane]

15 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

The P-51's chief advantage (in combat, as opposed to the strategic value of its range) was raw speed. Speed forgives a lot of flaws. I would say, pound for pound, the P-51 outclassed the 109 because of its speed and ease of use (more modern design features).

And a high tactical mach, so it could do more than 'hurr-durr straight line' with that speed. For the purposes of comparison with the P-47, though, it's range was its stand-out feature. At bomber-escort altitudes the Jug was perfectly competitive, it just couldn't go the distance. 

 

Benefits of the American designs don't get reflected in sims, since their most significant advantages tend to be strategic rather than tactical. Best ground handling planes in the game, though.

[oc2209]

7 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I know that was mostly tongue in cheek, but the Mustang to me is one hell of a design feat.  It's not that it was better than a 190, 109, Spitfire, etc. in the mythical one on one duel.  it's that it was as good as it was while being able to stay in the air for eight hours.  That is what makes it so impressive.  

 

 

What's interesting is that the Mustang was essentially the same as the Zero in concept (long range being the chief design consideration); but obviously it packed a lot more bells and whistles and overall flexibility into the same package. The Japanese were always at a disadvantage because the Zero was built around a tiny engine; by the time they could build more powerful engines, the war was as good as over.

 

The Zero was revolutionary in 1940, but entirely outclassed by '43. The Mustang was revolutionary when it counted, in '44, and wouldn't have been entirely useless even in the early jet age.

 

7 hours ago, Esel_kong said:

American trucks on the Eastern front is what won the war, at least according to Khrushchev in his autobiography. when i was younger i used to love to hate the P-51 because it was popular but now at the grand age of 32 if I could wish for any plane to own it may be a P-51. It just looks ******** good, performs good, has a good history.  but i hear you on the intolerable blahblahblah won the war popcorn documentaries that the history channel was pumping out 20 years ago - no idea if that's still the case haven't watched television in a decade.

 

Yeah, the dull but undeniable importance of logistics in war is something often overlooked. I don't doubt the truck assertion. I still think the Germans would've collapsed in the East simply by the numbers game of unsustainable attrition; but the rapid collapse of the front is what was directly facilitated by Lend-Lease aid.

 

Just to put some of this Mustang discussion in perspective, here's an excerpt from a book I have; which is quoting another book, Tumult in the Clouds, written by 14-kill ace Maj. Jim Goodson.

 

"I think the Mustang probably won the war because it had the range as well as the performance, so we could go anywhere the bombers went. The P-51 was a most remarkable plane, but it wasn't as much fun to fly as the Spit. The Mustang was not quite as tight in the turn, but it was faster than the Spitfire or the Fw-190 or the Bf-109, and of course it had this remarkable range, but it could also turn pretty well. I've out-turned a Fw-190 in a Mustang, but more importantly the P-51 had superior performance from 30,000 feet down to the deck, and could do this 750 miles from home."

 

I won't begrudge a fighting man saying it won the war; since their lives depended on it after all. It might be worth noting that he didn't explicitly say he out-turned a 109 (I'm sure some Mustang pilots did, but probably not against a veteran pilot who could push the 109 to its limits). But the Spit still wins as 'most fun to fly' which I think I can agree with.

 

This excerpt is also notable, from Hub Zemke, referring to the Mustang:

 

"As an instrument flying aircraft the P-51 could be a bit touchy, and could easily be over-controlled in turbulence. On the question of armament, it carried sufficient machine guns. Why I say this is that after viewing numerous combat films where pilots fired at extreme range or over-deflected, I came firmly to the conclusion that one should fight for a combat position of ten degrees or less deflection. At close range--250 yards or less--there is no doubt what would happen when the trigger is depressed: it was a matter of ducking the flying pieces after that."

 

So in other words, he's saying the guns are sufficient--if used properly.

Edited May 4, 2021 by oc2209

[BlitzPig_EL]

The A6M was really a remarkable design for it's time, especially considering the tendered specifications by the IJN:

 

Extreme range.

 

High maneuverability

 

Good rate of climb

 

Mixed cannon and machine gun armament

 

And, oh yeah, you only have 900bhp (initially) to play with.

 

Yup, an amazing design.

[von_Tom]

On 4/28/2021 at 4:48 PM, ICDP said:

 

The Spitfire.

 

 

So the plane is ok, but not what people think about it hmmmm?  Would you prefer pitchfork, scythe or being burned at the stake?

 

For me it's the Hurricane.  An iconic early war RAF aircraft with such an important impact, but my god is it fugly.  Performance matches its looks.

 

von Tom

[40plus]

3 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

So the plane is ok, but not what people think about it hmmmm?  Would you prefer pitchfork, scythe or being burned at the stake?

 

For me it's the Hurricane.  An iconic early war RAF aircraft with such an important impact, but my god is it fugly.  Performance matches its looks.

 

von Tom

Has to be one of the ugliest birds in this sim.... Those 40mm though

[357th_KW]

It’s worth pointing out that range isn’t some specialized capability that is only desired in one role.  It’s a fundamental part of what makes any aircraft useful.  
 

The 109 is a perfect example at the opposite end of the spectrum, where a lack of range was a continuous problem throughout the war.  People always point to the Battle of Britain, but short range forced Luftwaffe fighter units to constantly shift from one unimproved field to another on the eastern front and in North Africa - a big handicap with a plane that struggled with takeoff and landing accidents and likewise for an Air Force that faced big logistical struggles throughout the war.  The biggest source of loss for 109s during the invasion of Sicily was Allied bombs - the price of having such short range that your fighters have to be based right behind the front.  109s (and 190s) had to carry drop tanks rather than bombs during Bodenplatte just to be able to reach Allied forward fields.

 

The 51 is a perfect example of the opposite.  Mustangs were able to carry out operations over the entirety of Europe, from Stavanger to Berlin to Prague to Ploesti, all from permanent, secure and well supplied bases in the UK and Italy.  That’s a HUGE force multiplier.

 

That trend continues today, where one of the most central and critical capabilities of the USAF is mid air refueling.

[ICDP]

Hurricane Mk I range: 445 miles

Bf109E range: 410 miles

Spitfire Mk Ia range: 415 miles

 

Range was an issue for most European aircraft designed in the early - mid 30s.  To single out the 109E as having to constantly shift airbases with the front lines is a bit biased because most other air forces had to do the same.  To also state the 109 and 190s were useless because they had to carry drop tanks to extend their range, while ignoring that so did the P51D.  Do we declare the P51D useless becuase it couldn't reach Berlin with a bombload?

[Aurora_Stealth]

7 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

It’s worth pointing out that range isn’t some specialized capability that is only desired in one role.  It’s a fundamental part of what makes any aircraft useful.  
 

The 109 is a perfect example at the opposite end of the spectrum, where a lack of range was a continuous problem throughout the war.  People always point to the Battle of Britain, but short range forced Luftwaffe fighter units to constantly shift from one unimproved field to another on the eastern front and in North Africa - a big handicap with a plane that struggled with takeoff and landing accidents and likewise for an Air Force that faced big logistical struggles throughout the war.  The biggest source of loss for 109s during the invasion of Sicily was Allied bombs - the price of having such short range that your fighters have to be based right behind the front.  109s (and 190s) had to carry drop tanks rather than bombs during Bodenplatte just to be able to reach Allied forward fields.

 

The 51 is a perfect example of the opposite.  Mustangs were able to carry out operations over the entirety of Europe, from Stavanger to Berlin to Prague to Ploesti, all from permanent, secure and well supplied bases in the UK and Italy.  That’s a HUGE force multiplier.

 

That trend continues today, where one of the most central and critical capabilities of the USAF is mid air refueling.

 

With hindsight and technological advancements (yes), except within the context overall during the second world war - short range interceptors / fighters were the norm - this changed with the requirement for bomber escorting, multi-role functions (after the bomber always gets through concept started to fail). This had been a carry over from 1930's thinking.

 

That's why you have interim compromises and aircraft designs like the Bf 110 and P-38 etc which were optimised differently (specialised) compared to many others. Most of these aircraft are considered today to be less "maneuverable" - so is it really preferable? Also one of the reasons that the US emphasised range more than most others was because the US itself is a much larger country to traverse and had to consider fighting in the pacific, Japan was also potentially having to cross the pacific to assert itself so its a different set of requirements. This isn't so much of a consideration when fighting in continental europe, but became one as countries engaged in a large scale / global war - people did not necessarily expect this to happen (invasion of Poland, Pearl Harbour) and it often takes years to develop mature aircraft and make advancements.

 

Most european air forces didn't want their interceptors carrying large amounts of fuel (thus weight), in fact it was vehemently opposed - hence the concept of an interceptor being light, very maneuverable, fast climbing and agile to meet the opposition quickly. If you're a small(ish) country then its not that useful being an interceptor if you are a large distance from the frontline because then you actually have to then fly that distance to meet the bombers... and you've lost time that could have been spent actually engaging the enemy and preventing the attack (you may be too late to respond effectively).

 

The P-51 B, C and D were definitely unique and projected power in ways other aircraft couldn't, but... it was (a) a multinational project, (b) a design answer to a very different requirement (circa 1942) to the first generation of defensive fighters (c) initially had limited high alt performance and only later matured in 1944 (d) was not ideal (and was not chosen by the RAF) to replace other aircraft as a short range interceptor due to certain reasons (firepower, climb rate and robustness of design were not considered ideal / optimal for dealing with medium / heavy bombers)... but as the US didn't have to handle heavy bombers or a large number of medium bombers in 1944 this wasn't a concern.

 

Also, I'm going to make a somewhat pretentious comment here (uh-oh lol) but... is carrying a ton of fuel in the wings and rear fuselage an advantage when you're being shot at from close range [flak or well armed aircraft]? what if they're using incendiary or high explosives... what if you need to fly at low altitudes?

Edited May 5, 2021 by Aurora_Stealth

[Zooropa_Fly]

I hate bf109's.

Fly one once a year or so just by chance.

Took one out a few weeks ago to clear some AAA, in the absence of a '190.

Fist attack flew straight into the ground.

That's me until 2022.

 

S!

[Robli]

I really tried to think, are there any WWII planes that I had, and could not come up with many. 

Of course every party used propaganda to glorify some of their planes, but even if you forget the propaganda, most of these planes actually were very good at least in some areas. There were also many bad designs and planes that failed, but in a way even these were interesting planes and I don't hate them.

 

Maybe the only hateable plane that came to mind after quite some thinking was Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka, a purpose-built kamikaze plane, for what it represented. 

 

What comes to Battle of Britain, I don't think that Germany ever realistically planned to invade Britain. The purpose of the battle was to scare or lure Britain to sign a peace treaty with Germany.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Robli

[CaptainElzo]

Funny enough, my pet hate airplane for a while was the namegiver for the game here, the Ilyushin Il-2.

 

But it was all down to a mate of mine who's big into WW2 planes always claiming it to be the best WW2 fighter (yes, fighter).

In his eyes it outclassed the P51D, the Spitfire (any mark) and the FockeWulf D9 in every aspect (yes, every aspect).

 

Trying to have a reasonable discussion didn't work, so to have to listen to him, how it was supperior in every way... ?

 

Eventually (and fortunately) he just by himself admited he was wrong and we did agree that the IL2 was a good attack bomber.

 

So right now, I have no plane that I love to hate. ?

[JtD]

49 minutes ago, CaptainElzo said:

So right now, I have no plane that I love to hate.

 

But you are aware that the Ju87 is truly superior to any other WW2 aircraft in every aspect?

[Bremspropeller]

16 hours ago, oc2209 said:

What's interesting is that the Mustang was essentially the same as the Zero in concept (long range being the chief design consideration); but obviously it packed a lot more bells and whistles and overall flexibility into the same package.

 

That's not really true. The P-51 was built for the Brits who wanted a fighter...like...yesterday. There wasn't any special consideration concerning range at all.

 

Range was built into the aircraft by ugrading it with a 85gal fuselage tank and two shackles that could each take a 108gal tank.

That actually happened during production of the P-51B, which was after mating the airframe with the new engine to give it a duckton of improved high altitude performance.

It also happened after re-arming the aircraft one or two times (and another redsesign of it's armament was in the pipes).

 

The P-51 was a capable airframe right from the beginning - but that's more a testament to the farsighted design of NAA, rather than out of any specification. The P-51B was almost killed by politics within the USAAF.

[Pict]

I was going to go with the Martin Baker MB-5, simply because it didn't make it past prototype, through no fault of it's own. But I though I'd go with the Mosquito MKIV bomber variant, as I prefer it to the MKVI and I'm almost sure we will never see it in BOX, but these aren't reason to hate the planes either of of them really.

 

As a rule I love them all, regardless of how good™ or crap™ they are touted to be.

 

================

 

That said with regards to the op. It's an interesting idea and I agree with the general idea of the BoB and it's possibly overstated role being a reason the hate the Spitfire. After all a similar thing could be said about the spitfire and it's role in the defense of Malta.

 

However I don't hate the Spitfire, I'm just not a keen follower of fashion, and I think the Spitfire suffered lots from those who are.

 

I'd be interested in a "Pilots you love to hate (do not take offence in this thread)." thread and if there was one the guy at the top of my list would be Douglas Bader  

 

35 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

But you are aware that the Ju87 is truly superior to any other WW2 aircraft in every aspect?

 

Now you mention it...rules were made to be broken now and then