Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pacific wrote:


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.

It's the Bronco's good looking latino cousin.

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.

Basicly it was the A-10's great granddaddy.

SeanDrake wrote:

Basicly it was the A-10's great granddaddy.

That and the Mitchell anyway...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

simonr1978 wrote:



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.

We lost one today, with all 7 Airmen on board.

I heard about that Helicopter crash ont he news this morning. A sad day indeed.

I am also fond of this Vietnam era warbird....



and this good old fighter from Vietnam....

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

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

A7M Reppu



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.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
A7M Reppu



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.

The pinnacle

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

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.

Damn. At least we made it two pages before devolving into the 'your X is wrong' smacktalk.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Damn. At least we made it two pages before devolving into the 'your X is wrong' smacktalk.

I'd call it discussion. Discussion is fun.

This thread is clean divide between posts with images of the Spitfire and posts by people with incorrect answers.

 Orlanth wrote:
This thread is clean divide between posts with images of the Spitfire and posts by people with incorrect answers.

Have you ever flown a Spitfire?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
A7M Reppu



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.

I like a number of the experimental WWII aircraft shown here

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/05/02/gooney-birds-13-experimental-aircraft-designs-that-were-too-weird-for-wartime/


the German Blohm and Voss Bv-141 is just so wrong looking, but actually performed pretty well even though it was not taken up


and the British Miles M.39 Libellula

but if we're talking about planes that actually hit production then it's the English Electric Lightning Interceptor



It looks cool and did the job it was designed for near perfectly

I love dumb German designs. The Triebflügel is definitely a favorite.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I like a number of the experimental WWII aircraft shown here

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/05/02/gooney-birds-13-experimental-aircraft-designs-that-were-too-weird-for-wartime/


the German Blohm and Voss Bv-141 is just so wrong looking, but actually performed pretty well even though it was not taken up


and the British Miles M.39 Libellula

but if we're talking about planes that actually hit production then it's the English Electric Lightning Interceptor



It looks cool and did the job it was designed for near perfectly

Lol. Engine. Add guns wings... Oh wait you need a pilot!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
A7M Reppu



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!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This thread is clean divide between posts with images of the Spitfire and posts by people with incorrect answers.

Have you ever flown a Spitfire?

It is a dream to fly apparently, handles very smoothly. But I was not aware that one had to have a pilots license in order to post in this thread.

A spitfire pilot once said that you didn't get into a spitfire, you strapped it on...

I am also partial to the ME 109. Like the spit and mustang, it has very clean lines. The butcher bird looks more like a US plane to me.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
A7M Reppu



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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

simonr1978 wrote:


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.

Hard to decide... the one coming to mind right now is the Douglas A1D Skyraider.

Let's see if this picture works...



Just a mean looking aircraft. It was featured briefly in the movie We Were Soldiers, performing a strafing run when broken arrow was called.

As for helicopters it is a hard choice between the HIND and the Mi-28.

Is it scary that I agree with Frazzled and go with the Corsair as my favorite airplane?

 skyth wrote:
Is it scary that I agree with Frazzled and go with the Corsair as my favorite airplane?

Gull swept wing are great. Corsair, Ju-87, B7A are all quite beautiful.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Is it scary that I agree with Frazzled and go with the Corsair as my favorite airplane?

Gull swept wing are great. Corsair, Ju-87, B7A are all quite beautiful.

That. And something about poor little lambs that lost their way...