Well, the tank thread seems pretty popular, so why not a knockoff version about aircraft?
I happent o be a fan of the Swedish Air Forces attempts to be Not-NATO and build their own aircraft. Apparently, instead of building Nuclear Weapons, they decided to build a native air force, and was the 4th largest in the World during the Cold War. I am a fan of most of the Saab created combat aircraft just for their distinct look....
Saab Tunnnan- The plane the 1950's Swedish Air Force was built around.
Saab Draken
Saab Viggen
Saab Grippen- The modern backbone of the Swedish Air Force and a multi-role aircraft
Good idea ! The Saab Grippen looks a lot like a French Rafale (or is it the other way around ?).
The two I really like are the Me 262 and the F-86 Sabre !
That is a beautiful line of aircraft. I prefer the pug of attack/transport helicopters- the first and only, the glorious Hind. Nothing about it is beautiful, and it appears that someone slapped 3 or 4 different aircraft together at high speeds- and all of them are uncomfortable with the results. And yet it is such a triumph of function over form. It was a versatile, incredibly tough aircraft- and it still is. Much like it's fixed wing cousin, the Warthog, some things just appeal because of their brutal disregard for aesthetics. The Hind blows a hole in your heart and deploys troops to fill it.
I really like the beautiful curves of the Messerschmitt Me-262.
Spoiler:
It was one of the first plastic models I built as a child, and I fell in love with its design immediately. I'm also a fan of SAAB 29 Tunnan and Mitsubishi Ki-46 I-II (before they changed the windshield design with version III).
Modern aircraft are a bit like modern cars, they look a bit too similar and don't have as much personality. Most stealth designs are really ugly. I get that they're great at what they do, but no modern aircraft makes me want to sit down and lovingly build a model of it.
I love the Concorde. Wildly impractical plaything for the rich, but absolutely beautiful plane.
In terms of fighter aircraft it has to be the P51. By the time it was adapted to high altitude performance it really was the final, perfected version evolution of prop fighters, and it looks it.
But you gotta hand it to the A-10 warthog. Quite effective in it's role, nothing tops it on ground attack aircraft.
The B52 tho, man that is the Methuselah of aircraft. In an era where things are obsolete in a decade that grand old airwhale is still going strong after it's reached an age where it's crews would be forced to retire.
the B-17 easily, I've been in love with that thing since first seeing the movie memphis belle as a kid(next time a flight is in town I'm riding that thing 100%)
second choice would be the osprey, I just love it for some reason
But you gotta hand it to the A-10 warthog. Quite effective in it's role, nothing tops it on ground attack aircraft.
The B52 tho, man that is the Methuselah of aircraft. In an era where things are obsolete in a decade that grand old airwhale is still going strong after it's reached an age where it's crews would be forced to retire.
Yeah, the big old girl is old as her crews parents.
Yet still carries a unmatched amount of heavy ordience.
I'm by no plane buff by any stretch of the imagination, but my two favourites have to be the venerable de Havilland Mosquito, and the utterly bananas Hawker Harrier.
SR-71 - Fast and pushed technology right to the edge in just about every area. It was flying right at the edge of the envelope of what was possible for many years.
Spitfire. A British legend and icon. Never mind its capability as a fighter craft, its propaganda value alone was incredible.
B52 or BUFF. The shear presence of the B52 is something to behold. They have one at Duxford and it totally dominates the hall. It's huge... It is war incarnate. It is such a symbol of US power, strength and shear destructive ability at the height of US power in the world. It is an icon of the jet age, of the US self confidence in the 1950's, of the cold war and the Vietnam war. It is 60 years old and still going strong, and still valid today.
Space shuttle. The words biggest glider, attached tot he worlds biggest fireworks. Another icon of the US, but this time one of peace. It came out of the space race, but now, to me, it is an icon of scientific endeavour.
Concorde. Just such a beautiful aircraft. A total folly, but the panicle of the jet age. Of when air travel was cool and not just something we suffer through.
Vulcan. Anyone who has seen one fly, or more accurately felt it fly. When they light up the afterburners it just leaves you stunned. This and Concorde are like the space shuttle and B52. Icons of British confidence and power post ww2.
Electric Lightning. A dirty great engine with a seat on top. An aircraft with just one purpose with no compromise. To intercept an incoming strategic bomber as fast as possible. Payload of 2 missiles, range of 1000 miles, and mind bogglingly fast and fully aerobatic.
I've been an aircraft enthusiast since forever and I can never pick a favourite, though most the planes on my top 20 would be ww2 aircraft, especially fighters.
Hawker Tempest because it has a bloody 24 cyl H block with sleeve valves and looks mean as hell.
Mosquito because who could dislike a super fast wooden fighter bomber.
Stuka because it was probably the only remotely accurate bomber and it looks scary.
Bf109 for its scary look, leading edge slate and inverted v12 with direct fuel injection.
P-51 for its super low drag and big fuel capacity.
P47 for its turbocharged double wasp that produced insane power all the way from the deck to high altitude.
Zero for its on-the-edge design being super light and super long endurance. The Sakai engine is also pretty cool for its power to weight ratio.
Hayabusa because that thing could turn on a bloody dime. I've seen gun camera footage of someone trying to shoot one down and the way it danced through the sky was incredible.
Honestly I could keep going until I run out of ww2 fighters, they're all awesome and I haven't even touched on the soviet ones yet.
Anyone who's played harpoon (and been annoyed by its lacking combat range) knows those, but if it's the only CAP you got on board you might as well use it.
Space shuttle. The words biggest glider, attached tot he worlds biggest fireworks. Another icon of the US, but this time one of peace. It came out of the space race, but now, to me, it is an icon of scientific endeavour.
It's a pity the design was so compromised, and that it never really lived up to its intention, but yes, it's a cool plane.
Vulcan. Anyone who has seen one fly, or more accurately felt it fly. When they light up the afterburners it just leaves you stunned. This and Concorde are like the space shuttle and B52. Icons of British confidence and power post ww2.
This, and the contemporary Handley-Page Victor still look like something from science fiction now, fifty years after they were first introduced. The logistics involved in getting two Vulcans from Ascenscion Island to the Falklands and back is quite something; Three Victors refuel three more, two of which refuel the third so it can refuel a Vulcan on the outbound leg, then more refuelling flights on the way back, to get a plane designed to fly relatively short distances over Europe a third of the way round the world in one go:
From the movies, I've always loved the Rolls-Royce Orion spaceplane as shown in Pan-Am livery in 2001: A Space Oddysey:
Can't lie. Don't know much of anything about planes like I do tanks, but I've always loved the unique look of this plane, and it was my favorite to fly in Heroes of the Pacific.
Anyone who's played harpoon (and been annoyed by its lacking combat range) knows those, but if it's the only CAP you got on board you might as well use it.
For some reason I had in my head that the Yak-38 was STOL.
Space shuttle. The words biggest glider, attached tot he worlds biggest fireworks. Another icon of the US, but this time one of peace. It came out of the space race, but now, to me, it is an icon of scientific endeavour.
It's a pity the design was so compromised, and that it never really lived up to its intention, but yes, it's a cool plane.
The Harrier is another plane that - if you remove the missile rails and paint it a more attractive colour - just looks cool, and that's purely down to its function. It's not quite so cool-looking as Concorde, a Vulcan or a Spitfire, but it's got the same sort of charm as an ugly puppy.
As others have said, my favourite is the one I get to fly.
We just retired the old girl after over 50 years of outstanding service in the RCAF. The new Cyclone is amazing to fly too, but there's something to be said about analog controls over new digital fly by wire systems. The Sea King was a tank that would fly in any weather, off pitching and rolling ships, and did it all 12 hours a day, for weeks on end. She will be missed.
The DeHavilland Mosquito. Faster than any fighter in service when it began operations, with a higher ceiling, also capable of operating at roof top level (or even below roof top in some operations; look up the video from Operation Jericho) Precision strike capability, with fighter, fighter-bomber, anti-tank and reconnaissance variants. It’s the original multi-role combat aircraft.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Oh, and you were doing so well. :( The correct answer is, of course, the Spitfire:
I almost went with the Spitfire. Hands down the best looking plane, I have no idea what the elliptical wings achieved but they look great. And of course the Spitfire was a great plane.
I'm just in more of a mood for ruthless domination now. It's why I went for the Nimitz class in the warship thread, and why I'm going for the P51 here. The Spitfire gave excellent service, and played a decisive role in very tight combat. The latter, high altitude P51 was the plane the US used when it decided that actually, you know what, lets just not have any more Nazi planes in the sky. Just no more planes. Forget escorting the bombers, lets just fly off and shoot down Nazis wherever they are in the sky. And then they did it.
Next week I'll probably be in more of a derring-do mood, then I'll pick the Spitfire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
soundwave591 wrote: the B-17 easily, I've been in love with that thing since first seeing the movie memphis belle as a kid(next time a flight is in town I'm riding that thing 100%)
The B-17 looks great, and is such an icon of WW2 (I guess the Lancaster as well, but that thing is just so ugly).
But it's the move to the B-29 that really says something about how the war ended. It doesn't look like it belongs in WW2, it looks like future tech. It kind of was.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Oh, and you were doing so well. :( The correct answer is, of course, the Spitfire:
I almost went with the Spitfire. Hands down the best looking plane, I have no idea what the elliptical wings achieved but they look great. And of course the Spitfire was a great plane.
I'm just in more of a mood for ruthless domination now. It's why I went for the Nimitz class in the warship thread, and why I'm going for the P51 here. The Spitfire gave excellent service, and played a decisive role in very tight combat. The latter, high altitude P51 was the plane the US used when it decided that actually, you know what, lets just not have any more Nazi planes in the sky. Just no more planes. Forget escorting the bombers, lets just fly off and shoot down Nazis wherever they are in the sky. And then they did it.
Next week I'll probably be in more of a derring-do mood, then I'll pick the Spitfire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
soundwave591 wrote: the B-17 easily, I've been in love with that thing since first seeing the movie memphis belle as a kid(next time a flight is in town I'm riding that thing 100%)
The B-17 looks great, and is such an icon of WW2 (I guess the Lancaster as well, but that thing is just so ugly).
But it's the move to the B-29 that really says something about how the war ended. It doesn't look like it belongs in WW2, it looks like future tech. It kind of was.
Lancaster was not pretty, sure its somewhat less visually pleasing the the B29, but 4 merlin engines roaring low overhead, you can hear one coming for a good few miles.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote:The P47 does not approve of having been left out.
To be fair, I listed it as one of my runner-ups. The P-47 was an awesome aircraft... so awesome, that one of the other most awesomest aircraft borrowed its name.
sebster wrote:But it's the move to the B-29 that really says something about how the war ended. It doesn't look like it belongs in WW2, it looks like future tech. It kind of was.
Pressurized cabin? Check. Computer controlled machine gun turrets? Check. Long post-war service history? Check. Capable of delivering the most lethal weapon ever developed? Check mate.
It was hot trash before they upgraded it with liscense built Merlins.
Great aircraft, just had a lousy engine.
Apart from them being licence built you could say the same thing about the Avro Manchester.
Lancaster was not pretty, sure its somewhat less visually pleasing the the B29, but 4 merlin engines roaring low overhead, you can hear one coming for a good few miles.
I think the Lancaster has a kind of rugged charm myself, but there's no denying the B-29 was leagues ahead of any other bomber of the second world war. Stripped down Lancasters could carry a single Grand Slam, stripped down Boeing Washingtons could carry two.
Personally though it's so difficult to pick a favourite. The Wellington is a definite candidate because it was seeing the Loch Ness R-Robert being raised which first sparked an interest in aviation for me.
Other contenders, probably the Hurricane over the Spitfire, with a nod to the Westland Whirlwind a potential great that just never quite made it.
Edit: Regarding the Lancaster, I had the great fortune to have two fly low over my home in Kent when Canada's airworthy Lancaster was over here a couple of years back. 8 Merlins roaring low overhead was something else.
I'm not that keen on the Mustang personally though, whilst there's no denying its effectiveness it's always looked a bit pot-belied or pregnant with that radiator sticking out under the fuselage the way it does.
Post war, I've always liked the Hawker Hunter.
Late cold war, the F-14. No, not because of Top Gun which I only got round to watching a few years ago, looking at 3-views side by side F-14s always put me in the mind of what an F-15 would like if it hit the gym hard and took protein supplements. Probably with runners up being the F-4 and Panavia Tornado.
But it's the move to the B-29 that really says something about how the war ended. It doesn't look like it belongs in WW2, it looks like future tech. It kind of was.
I've always thought the Messerschmitt 264 looked remarkably similar to the Superfortress.
Has to be the Spitfire. One of the most beautiful machines ever built, but what really makes it utterly glorious is the sound. The engine it shares with the Lancaster and the oft-underrated Hawker Hurricane makes a flypast by the Battle of Britain memorial flight one of the most stirring and awe-inspiring sounds you can ever hope to hear. I've seen/heard it a few times, it never stops being just awesome!
I am partial to the Eurofighter, mainly as it was the 'cool new shiny thing' when my interest in aircraft was at its height. Certainly still a very cool look. This one in the classic RAF camo is really nice.
That said, all of these pale in comparison to the greatest fighter in fiction, the T-65 X-wing!
The B1 is probably one of the loudest aircraft I've ever seen in the flesh, never seen anything set off so many car alarms.
whembly wrote: Growing up, for some reason I was partial to the Phantom:
Ah nice one, that was the one I was about to post. It's definitely got something about it
A couple of my pics of favourite aircraft from the UK Fairford air show
Couldn't find a pic I've taken of a Flanker, and sadly you get a lot less Russian stuff at the UK shows these days since relations have soured (think this was from the Czech airforce), but the Mig-29 is pretty iconic.
For something this big, the moves that the A400 makes are genuinely frightening. It can practically do a loop
The weird thing that the Red Skull flew in Captain America (as well as the big bomber, for that matter) is on there too:
http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwtrieb.html
For me, I gotta go with the AC-130 Spectre Gunship:
Basically a modified military transport plane that carries plenty of whoopass to throw at the enemy. When I saw the first Transformers movie and this thing was on screen, I nearly went "SQUEE!" with excitement.
Runner-ups would be:
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Grumman F6F Hellcat
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
General Dynamics F-19 Fighting Falcon
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15
I have to go P51-D also.
It's just the complete package of awesomeness. It accomplished great things - looks great - and it was the best of an age of iconic fighters (all of them really good designs themselves). It makes me really sad I didn't live in these days. All you had to do was volunteer and you could fly the most BA plane ever made (all you had to to was risk your life!). It also is a great example of what can happen when two nations combine their ideas. When they put the British engine in the p-51 it went from being just a good low altitude fighter - to the best fighter at literally everything.
Always been a huge fan of the Eurofighter Typhoon as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Funny how no one votes for the BF109 - It was a pretty impressive airplane for it's time.
B52 or BUFF. The shear presence of the B52 is something to behold. They have one at Duxford and it totally dominates the hall. It's huge... It is war incarnate. It is such a symbol of US power, strength and shear destructive ability at the height of US power in the world. It is an icon of the jet age, of the US self confidence in the 1950's, of the cold war and the Vietnam war. It is 60 years old and still going strong, and still valid today.
For a couple that haven't been mentioned yet I'd like to additionally nominate the English Electric Canberra. Such a good aircraft in its time that the US produced it for themselves as the Martin B-57 Canberra and despite first flying in 1949 was still in service with the RAF into this century.
Also stepping away from combat planes (For the most part) for now, the humble Douglas Dakota. The unglamourous air transport workhorse of the Allies which saw service in every part of the globe, even serving as the original transport-gunship conversion in Vietnam as the AC-47.
Couldn't find a pic I've taken of a Flanker, and sadly you get a lot less Russian stuff at the UK shows these days since relations have soured (think this was from the Czech airforce), but the Mig-29 is pretty iconic.
That's a Polish AF roundel.
Now, getting into more niche stuff, I've always loved the lines of the Pucará.
The mix of jet-era lines but with those honest-to-god twin props and rocket pods along with the fixed armament of 4xMG and 2xcannon.
Has to be a mosquito so may versions produced but my favourite has to be the late war anti ship/sub version that mounted the 6 pounder from the churchill tank but with an autoloader that allowed full automatic fire.
They also fitted a 32 pouder in a test plane but as the war ended it was finished flown and passed the firing tests before being scrapped.
Xenomancers wrote: It's just the complete package of awesomeness. It accomplished great things - looks great - and it was the best of an age of iconic fighters (all of them really good designs themselves). It makes me really sad I didn't live in these days. All you had to do was volunteer and you could fly the most BA plane ever made (all you had to to was risk your life!). It also is a great example of what can happen when two nations combine their ideas. When they put the British engine in the p-51 it went from being just a good low altitude fighter - to the best fighter at literally everything.
Best at everything is stretching it a bit IMO. The Spitfire MkXIV was in service slightly ahead of the Mustang IIRC, was slightly faster, better armed and certain versions fitted with a centre line fuel tank had a very good range on them also. Similarly, there was a long range version of the Yak-9 (Can't recall the designation off hand) that would have certainly given the Mustang a run for its money in its designated role.
Lastly of course there was the ground attack role where other fighters, notably on the US side the P-47 and the F6F, were far better suited than the Mustang. All that been said though, the Mustang was a true triumph of capitalist greed.
Funny how no one votes for the BF109 - It was a pretty impressive airplane for it's time.
The issue with Bf109 IMO is that like a fair amount of the other German equipment by the end the final versions were really pushing the limits of the design too far and in most regards it seems to be regarded as the weaker stablemate of the Fw-190. Plus it was a very dangerous plane for inexperienced pilots due to how extremely narrow the undercarriage was. Still, for being the only other fighter to be in production before, during and after the second world war besides the Spitfire it definitely is up there in terms of the old warbirds.
Best at everything is stretching it a bit IMO. The Spitfire MkXIV was in service slightly ahead of the Mustang IIRC, was slightly faster, better armed and certain versions fitted with a centre line fuel tank had a very good range on them also. Similarly, there was a long range version of the Yak-9 (Can't recall the designation off hand) that would have certainly given the Mustang a run for its money in its designated role.
Lastly of course there was the ground attack role where other fighters, notably on the US side the P-47 and the F6F, were far better suited than the Mustang. All that been said though, the Mustang was a true triumph of capitalist greed.
Another favorite of mine, the Yak-3, regarded by pilots that flew the P-51D, Spitefire and it as the best of the three. Quite loved by the Normandie-Niemen unit that used them.
Speaking of the Normandie-Niemen group, I also quite like their new Aircraft, the Dassault Rafale.
The HH-60 Pave Hawk. Used for a variety of Special Operations, one of which being the insertion of Pararescue Men to assist in the recovery of injured US personnel in hot combat zones.
It's just the complete package of awesomeness. It accomplished great things - looks great - and it was the best of an age of iconic fighters (all of them really good designs themselves). It makes me really sad I didn't live in these days. All you had to do was volunteer and you could fly the most BA plane ever made (all you had to to was risk your life!). It also is a great example of what can happen when two nations combine their ideas. When they put the British engine in the p-51 it went from being just a good low altitude fighter - to the best fighter at literally everything.
Hold on now, the P-51D might have been the best long range escort fighter (because of it's British Engine), but as far as dog fighting goes, the Spitfire is probably the best. Then in the case of the FW-190D it all comes down to the "who has the jump on who metric".
But then it's all apples and oranges because they were designed for different things.
Although I do recall a quote saying something along the lines of "If I were in a dogfight, I'd want a Spitfire, but I wouldn't want to be in a dogfight over Berlin in a Spitfire as you wouldn't be able to get back to Britain".
Designed to replace the rapidly ageing A6M (zero and variants) it never saw full scale production as the factory that was to produce them was flattened by US bombing raids. It was set for production though, and the test pilots loved it could turn circles around a mustang while climbing according to one, and this was a carrier fighter. 2x13mm and 2x20mm gave it excellent firepower as well. However it was large to allow it to maintain zero level maneuverability with the added weight.
It's just the complete package of awesomeness. It accomplished great things - looks great - and it was the best of an age of iconic fighters (all of them really good designs themselves). It makes me really sad I didn't live in these days. All you had to do was volunteer and you could fly the most BA plane ever made (all you had to to was risk your life!). It also is a great example of what can happen when two nations combine their ideas. When they put the British engine in the p-51 it went from being just a good low altitude fighter - to the best fighter at literally everything.
Hold on now, the P-51D might have been the best long range escort fighter (because of it's British Engine), but as far as dog fighting goes, the Spitfire is probably the best. Then in the case of the FW-190D it all comes down to the "who has the jump on who metric".
But then it's all apples and oranges because they were designed for different things.
Although I do recall a quote saying something along the lines of "If I were in a dogfight, I'd want a Spitfire, but I wouldn't want to be in a dogfight over Berlin in a Spitfire as you wouldn't be able to get back to Britain".
I'm not biased honest
Diffrent planes, different aims.
A Spitfire was ideal to defend the United Kingdom, shorter range sorties and missions. Able to out speed and out move enemy aircraft. Long range was less important.
The Mustang has much longer combat ranges and designed to take the to enemy instead of defending.
Bpth where good, a Spitfire would excel on defensive and protective missions. The Mustang was a powerful tool to project fighter cover to Germany.
I'd disagree that 2 13mm and 2 20mm counts as excellent firepower. For its time it was decidedly average and paled in comparison to what aircraft like Fw190A-8s could carry when augmented by Rutstatz kits.
Designed to replace the rapidly ageing A6M (zero and variants) it never saw full scale production as the factory that was to produce them was flattened by US bombing raids. It was set for production though, and the test pilots loved it could turn circles around a mustang while climbing according to one, and this was a carrier fighter. 2x13mm and 2x20mm gave it excellent firepower as well. However it was large to allow it to maintain zero level maneuverability with the added weight.
It's just the complete package of awesomeness. It accomplished great things - looks great - and it was the best of an age of iconic fighters (all of them really good designs themselves). It makes me really sad I didn't live in these days. All you had to do was volunteer and you could fly the most BA plane ever made (all you had to to was risk your life!). It also is a great example of what can happen when two nations combine their ideas. When they put the British engine in the p-51 it went from being just a good low altitude fighter - to the best fighter at literally everything.
Hold on now, the P-51D might have been the best long range escort fighter (because of it's British Engine), but as far as dog fighting goes, the Spitfire is probably the best. Then in the case of the FW-190D it all comes down to the "who has the jump on who metric".
But then it's all apples and oranges because they were designed for different things.
Although I do recall a quote saying something along the lines of "If I were in a dogfight, I'd want a Spitfire, but I wouldn't want to be in a dogfight over Berlin in a Spitfire as you wouldn't be able to get back to Britain".
I'm not biased honest
Being the only plane that could do the job (fly over to germany and get back) is something I took into consideration when calling it the best at everything (I don't literally mean a mustang would beat a spitfire at low altitude). Spitfire had some obvious advantages - higher low altitude maneuverability and rate of climb are pretty big things too. Just in theory these are advantages that a spit probably couldn't leverage on a stang. Lets just say the two fighters met at operational altitude. The Mustang would be higher and moving faster at this point (higher cruise speed and effective cruise altitude) pretty much a death sentence for the spitfire - Mustang also has superior dive speed so there is no escaping it.
simonr1978 wrote: I'd disagree that 2 13mm and 2 20mm counts as excellent firepower. For its time it was decidedly average and paled in comparison to what aircraft like Fw190A-8s could carry when augmented by Rutstatz kits.
Designed to replace the rapidly ageing A6M (zero and variants) it never saw full scale production as the factory that was to produce them was flattened by US bombing raids. It was set for production though, and the test pilots loved it could turn circles around a mustang while climbing according to one, and this was a carrier fighter. 2x13mm and 2x20mm gave it excellent firepower as well. However it was large to allow it to maintain zero level maneuverability with the added weight.
For a carrier based fighter with astounding mobility that has a third more range than the Fw190 (1200km vs 800)? Yes it is excellent firepower. Keep in mind what it was fighting, the F6F hellcat with 6x12.7mm. Those 20mm carried an astounding punch. And that was the "default" armament. They also had designs for just a flat 4x20mm, a 6x20mm, and a preliminary (although untested) designs for a 6x30mm bomber hunter.
For a carrier based fighter with astounding mobility that has a third more range than the Fw190 (1200km vs 800)? Yes it is excellent firepower. Keep in mind what it was fighting, the F6F hellcat with 6x12.7mm. Those 20mm carried an astounding punch. And that was the "default" armament. They also had designs for just a flat 4x20mm, a 6x20mm, and a preliminary (although untested) designs for a 6x30mm bomber hunter.
In your initial post you didn't state that you were comparing it strictly to other carrier fighters and didn't mention range, you simply stated that this represented excellent firepower and really it doesn't. It's not bad in fact I'd say it's fairly decent but it's far from excellent, it's the same as the late production Zeroes it was intended to replace. 20mm cannon really didn't carry that outstanding a punch, they were effective there's no denying that, but they were nowhere near as destructive as the 30mm cannon carried by the likes of the Bf109 where a single shell was enough to destroy a single engine fighter and a handful of hits could take out a heavy bomber, that was an outstanding punch. Even compared strictly to the Hellcat or Corsair (Which are pretty much the only other true contemporary long range carrier fighters in service), there's not really a overly huge disparity in armament, a 20mm will produce bigger holes but 2 .50s will produce many more holes and punch through most if not all of the light armour typically carried by contemporary warplanes.
A 20mm cannon or two plus Mgs was pretty common armament for a single seater by the time of the Reppu everywhere outside of the US and in the latter's case to be fair they largely stuck with the .50 because it was getting the job done and was more than effective enough against the fighters they were facing. Around the same point the Reppu could have been introduced, 4x20mm was pretty much the standard for RAF fighters (Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tempests, Meteors and Fireflies had been carrying these for some time, since 1941 in the case of the Hurricane and the Spitfire F21/22 were also so armed and would be just entering service themselves, although I will concede that it's probably stretching the definition to really count the Firefly as a fighter, stupid FAA and their 2-crew fighters.....)
I'd also bear in mind here that carrying the extra weight of 6x 20mm or 30mm cannon instead is going to affect the performance of the aircraft and that speed and manoeuvrability inevitably would deteriorate with that, although I am in full agreement that this would have represented excellent firepower.
It also wasn't realistically going to be a carrier based fighter though since the Japanese surface fleet had largely ceased to exist by the time the Reppu was going to enter production so it was most likely going to end up being used as a land based fighter intercepting land based heavy bombers (Or Kamikaze in which case armament is largely irrelevant) and for that 2x13mm and 2x20mm was going to be at best adequate.
simonr1978 wrote: I'd disagree that 2 13mm and 2 20mm counts as excellent firepower. For its time it was decidedly average and paled in comparison to what aircraft like Fw190A-8s could carry when augmented by Rutstatz kits.
Designed to replace the rapidly ageing A6M (zero and variants) it never saw full scale production as the factory that was to produce them was flattened by US bombing raids. It was set for production though, and the test pilots loved it could turn circles around a mustang while climbing according to one, and this was a carrier fighter. 2x13mm and 2x20mm gave it excellent firepower as well. However it was large to allow it to maintain zero level maneuverability with the added weight.
For a carrier based fighter with astounding mobility that has a third more range than the Fw190 (1200km vs 800)? Yes it is excellent firepower. Keep in mind what it was fighting, the F6F hellcat with 6x12.7mm. Those 20mm carried an astounding punch. And that was the "default" armament. They also had designs for just a flat 4x20mm, a 6x20mm, and a preliminary (although untested) designs for a 6x30mm bomber hunter.
The ghost of Pappy Boyington says he'll be your huckleberry. Corsair superior, all others inferior!
simonr1978 wrote: I'd disagree that 2 13mm and 2 20mm counts as excellent firepower. For its time it was decidedly average and paled in comparison to what aircraft like Fw190A-8s could carry when augmented by Rutstatz kits.
Designed to replace the rapidly ageing A6M (zero and variants) it never saw full scale production as the factory that was to produce them was flattened by US bombing raids. It was set for production though, and the test pilots loved it could turn circles around a mustang while climbing according to one, and this was a carrier fighter. 2x13mm and 2x20mm gave it excellent firepower as well. However it was large to allow it to maintain zero level maneuverability with the added weight.
For a carrier based fighter with astounding mobility that has a third more range than the Fw190 (1200km vs 800)? Yes it is excellent firepower. Keep in mind what it was fighting, the F6F hellcat with 6x12.7mm. Those 20mm carried an astounding punch. And that was the "default" armament. They also had designs for just a flat 4x20mm, a 6x20mm, and a preliminary (although untested) designs for a 6x30mm bomber hunter.
The ghost of Pappy Boyington says he'll be your huckleberry. Corsair superior, all others inferior!
Hellcat>Corsair any day. Although those gull wings are something special.
In your initial post you didn't state that you were comparing it strictly to other carrier fighters and didn't mention range, you simply stated that this represented excellent firepower and really it doesn't. It's not bad in fact I'd say it's fairly decent but it's far from excellent, it's the same as the late production Zeroes it was intended to replace. 20mm cannon really didn't carry that outstanding a punch, they were effective there's no denying that, but they were nowhere near as destructive as the 30mm cannon carried by the likes of the Bf109 where a single shell was enough to destroy a single engine fighter and a handful of hits could take out a heavy bomber, that was an outstanding punch. Even compared strictly to the Hellcat or Corsair (Which are pretty much the only other true contemporary long range carrier fighters in service), there's not really a overly huge disparity in armament, a 20mm will produce bigger holes but 2 .50s will produce many more holes and punch through most if not all of the light armour typically carried by contemporary warplanes.
A 20mm cannon or two plus Mgs was pretty common armament for a single seater by the time of the Reppu everywhere outside of the US and in the latter's case to be fair they largely stuck with the .50 because it was getting the job done and was more than effective enough against the fighters they were facing. Around the same point the Reppu could have been introduced, 4x20mm was pretty much the standard for RAF fighters (Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tempests, Meteors and Fireflies had been carrying these for some time, since 1941 in the case of the Hurricane and the Spitfire F21/22 were also so armed and would be just entering service themselves, although I will concede that it's probably stretching the definition to really count the Firefly as a fighter, stupid FAA and their 2-crew fighters.....)
I'd also bear in mind here that carrying the extra weight of 6x 20mm or 30mm cannon instead is going to affect the performance of the aircraft and that speed and manoeuvrability inevitably would deteriorate with that, although I am in full agreement that this would have represented excellent firepower.
It also wasn't realistically going to be a carrier based fighter though since the Japanese surface fleet had largely ceased to exist by the time the Reppu was going to enter production so it was most likely going to end up being used as a land based fighter intercepting land based heavy bombers (Or Kamikaze in which case armament is largely irrelevant) and for that 2x13mm and 2x20mm was going to be at best adequate.
I assumed it was obvious that I was talking about a carrier fighter. It's like comparing the armament of a heavy figther to a single engine ground one, they are different beasts. So let me state once agaoin 2x13mm and 2x20mm which was excellent armament (FOR A CARRIER FIGHTER AS THIS IS A CARRIER FIGHTER) As for carriers, in the battle of the Philippine sea (which happened in mid 1944) *nine* Japanese carriers took part. Zuikaku didn't get sunk 'till October. And had the factory not gotten blown to peices, they would have had reppus by early-mid 1944.
Orlanth wrote: But I was not aware that one had to have a pilots license in order to post in this thread.
You don't. But if you're going to smugly dismiss all non-Spitfire answers as incorrect I would have assumed you'd be following the "the best plane is the one you get to fly" rule and have one in your hangar.
I assumed it was obvious that I was talking about a carrier fighter. It's like comparing the armament of a heavy figther to a single engine ground one, they are different beasts. So let me state once agaoin 2x13mm and 2x20mm which was excellent armament (FOR A CARRIER FIGHTER AS THIS IS A CARRIER FIGHTER)
Yes, it was obvious that you were talking about a carrier fighter, no it was not obvious in the slightest that you were talking about it purely in comparison to contemporary carrier fighters. Even with that in mind 2x13mm and 2x20mm was still far from excellent in terms of firepower.
It was almost the same as the A6M5b Zero which was already in service at that time and slightly weaker than the A6M5c, roughly equal to that of the standard Corsair, Hellcat (2x 20mm will make bigger holes in enemy aircraft but 4x .50cal will make more holes and punch through armour better (Purely in terms of bullets/shells 4x .50 calibres are putting a heavier weight of projectiles out in the same amount of time) and Seafire and weaker than the night-fighter version of the Hellcat and Firefly (Although obviously the performance of the latter two would be inferior) and even then I personally would not regard the Firefly's 4x20mm as representing excellent firepower. The Reppu in its initial configuration had a fairly standard level of firepower compared to contemporary carrier fighters, fairly decent but I certainly wouldn't say excellent.
That's without considering that the Type 99 cannon which was basically a Japanese MG-FF was an inferior air to air combat weapon compared to the German Mg151/20, Soviet ShVAK and the British Hispano MkVs which all had higher muzzle velocities and rates of fire.
As for carriers, in the battle of the Philippine sea (which happened in mid 1944) *nine* Japanese carriers took part. Zuikaku didn't get sunk 'till October. And had the factory not gotten blown to peices, they would have had reppus by early-mid 1944.
That seems unlikely. From the Wikipedia page on the A7M:
With the larger, more powerful engine, wing loading became an issue. The Navy requested at most 150 kg/m², but wanted 130 kg/m² which complicated design considerations further. With the NK9 it could achieve 150 kg/m², but with the less power it would not meet the specifications for maximum speed. With the MK9 the engineers concluded it could fulfill the requirements; however, production of the MK9 was delayed compared to the NK9, and the Japanese Navy instructed Mitsubishi to use the NK9.
Work on the 17-Shi was further delayed by factories prioritizing A6M and Mitsubishi G4M production as well as further work on A6M variants and addressing Raiden issues. As a result, the 17-Shi, which became the A7M1, officially flew for the first time on 6 May 1944, four years after development started. The aircraft demonstrated excellent handling and maneuverability, but was underpowered as Mitsubishi engineers feared, and with a top speed similar to the A6M5 Zero.[2] It was a disappointment, and the Navy ordered development to stop on 30 July 1944, but Mitsubishi obtained permission for development to continue using the Ha-43 engine, flying with the completed Ha-43 on 13 October 1944. The A7M2 now achieved a top speed of 628 km/h (339 kn; 390 mph), while climb and other areas of performance surpassed the Zero, leading the Navy to change its mind and adopt the craft.[3] The A7M2 was also equipped with automatic combat flaps, used earlier on the Kawanishi N1K-J, significantly improving maneuverability.
By the time of the Phillipine Sea they still had not finished developing the final production variant and it seems like differing priorities and waiting on the development of a sufficiently powerful engine delayed the introduction of the type rather than Allied bombing, at least from what I've been able to find. At the time Zuikaku was being sunk, the final development version of the Reppu was only twelve days old and the type still in pre-production. There's no mention in the admittedly fairly brief page about damage to the factory delaying production or development to the point that the type could have been in action in mid-1944 (The only reference to production delays caused by bombing weren't until March '45), perhaps you can link me to a reference on that? With a fairly cursory search all I've found was a reference to the engine factory being hit but that only reduced the supply of the engines already in production rather than delay development of either plane or engine. So, like late model Zeroes the most significant likely use of the A7M would have been in defence of the home islands where it would have been going up to a large extent against land based fighters and bombers.
In any case it seems somewhat odd to me to consider carrier aircraft's armaments as special cases, for those few nations that possessed aircraft carriers their carrier based planes rarely lagged behind their ground based counterparts in terms of armament. Wildcats were similarly armed to early P-40s, Fulmars to Spitfires and Hurricanes, Fireflies to Tempests and Typhoons (And better than their Spitfire contemporaries), Hellcats and Corsairs to later P-40s and Mustangs (Admittedly behind the P-47, but significantly outgunning the earlier B/C Mustangs) and in the case of the Zero its armament was far superior to its Army counterpart, the Ki-43.
Secondly, it's not like carrier fighters operated in a total vacuum and it was far from unheard of for carrier fighters to encounter land based aircraft, especially in the case of Japan in the closing phases of the war, so to me at least it makes sense to compare the A7M as a single seat, single engine fighter to other single seat, single engine fighters. In comparison to single engine, single seat fighters as a whole it's firepower was realistically pretty middle of the road, even compared strictly to other carrier fighters it was again fairly standard, roughly on a par with the majority whilst being weaker than a lot of the others. (I am aware that I am slightly unfairly comparing it to the Firefly in here as it was a single engine twin seater)
Look, I seem to have touched a bit of a nerve here which was far from my intent. The Reppu looks like it had a lot of potential.
PBY Catalina. Why? Grandpa had a high enough opinion of them to volunteer to be a waist gunner when they asked for volunteers abroad his ship due to high casualties. Despite being sawn in half by Japanese AA during a Black Cat mission, the plane made it all the way back to the ship before breaking in half on landing.
godardc wrote: Good idea ! The Saab Grippen looks a lot like a French Rafale (or is it the other way around ?).
The two I really like are the Me 262 and the F-86 Sabre !
Me 262
F-86
These ^^^, but I'll add the Spitfire and the Corsair to my list as well.
I like the Me262, the Gloster Meteor, and those early jests with straight wings. They've got the same smooth curves as the SPitfire or P-51, without a propeller spoiling the lines.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I like the Me262, the Gloster Meteor, and those early jests with straight wings. They've got the same smooth curves as the SPitfire or P-51, without a propeller spoiling the lines.
Talking of which, the de Havilland Sea Vixen:
I may have a new favorite aircraft by looks alone. Need to look up its performance stats...
I'll give my love to the plane that did all the heavy lifting during the Battle of Britian
I got to see one of these fly when I visited Duxford in the 90s. It was awesome.
Best thing about the Hurricane was a quote I read somewhere (might have been in the manual of microsoft combat flight simulator way back ) about how you fight in them. Was something along the lines of: "Wait until the enemy fills your whole cockpit before you pull the trigger".
Okay, I already posted, but I wanted to show some more favourites:
My favourite bomber, the Tupolev Tu-160. It is big, it is fast, and it has a rotary launcher which launches thermonuclear missiles. It can carry enough payload to level a small country.
Late cold war, the F-14. No, not because of Top Gun which I only got round to watching a few years ago, looking at 3-views side by side F-14s always put me in the mind of what an F-15 would like if it hit the gym hard and took protein supplements. Probably with runners up being the F-4 and Panavia Tornado.
/b-36-peacemaker-large-57c4bbe83df78cc16edb7001.jpg)
