Best fighter in WW2???

[Rainer]

You have my full support. Seriously.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] It hasn't. I was a victim myself a couple of months ago. But that doesn't excuse improper and inflamatory phrases that have nothing to do with the argument. All I ask is keep it a clean fight. Try and keep it on topic. And watch your @##$%^ language. [:D]

Exactly! That's why I'm staying out of this one. Besides, everyone already knows that the Zero was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[:D]Probably the smartest thing you can do. I know this thread has already appeared over at Madcowsteakhouse. And I for one don't appreciate it. That comment will no doubt earn me a few snide comments casting aspersions on my parentage or sexuality. But WE don't have to be inflamatory or act like residents in the monkey cage flinging monkey poo at passers bye. [:)]

[mlees]

I am sorta curious about the comparison of the stats at very high altitude. (That is, 28,000+)
 
How long do combats remain at those altitudes?
 
It was my understanding that units engaged in air to air fighting tended to lose altitude quickly.
 
I remember reading Boyingtons book, and he occasionally makes comments about this or that aircraft (or himself) escaping at wave top level. I assume most of these combats started out a tad bit higher... 

[ChezDaJez]

Generally speaking the longer the dogfight lasts, the lower it gets. This is because planes lose speed once they start to maneuver so they dive to regain. Sometimes the action, if viewed in profile, would look like a staircase.

However, that would depend on the target too. If your after high altitude bombers, you need to get up there and stay awhile.

Chez

[AW1Steve]

[:)] Wouldn't that depend on the tactics the pilots use? I would imagine a fast climber , like a Zero or Spitfire might "zoomClimb", while a P-40 would use "Brick tactics".     I've always felt that the "best Plane", was the one that you could get that was most suitable to your current need. [:)]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] Wouldn't that depend on the tactics the pilots use? I would imagine a fast climber , like a Zero or Spitfire might "zoomClimb", while a P-40 would use "Brick tactics". I've always felt that the "best Plane", was the one that you could get that was most suitable to your current need. [:)]

Would this qualify as a dogfight though? More like hit and run... such as the AVG used after being warned "Never dogfight".

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] Wouldn't that depend on the tactics the pilots use? I would imagine a fast climber , like a Zero or Spitfire might "zoomClimb", while a P-40 would use "Brick tactics". I've always felt that the "best Plane", was the one that you could get that was most suitable to your current need. [:)]

Would this qualify as a dogfight though? More like hit and run... such as the AVG used after being warned "Never dogfight".

[:D]I'd call it the best kind of dogfight. Short. Sweet. Survived. [:D]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] Wouldn't that depend on the tactics the pilots use? I would imagine a fast climber , like a Zero or Spitfire might "zoomClimb", while a P-40 would use "Brick tactics". I've always felt that the "best Plane", was the one that you could get that was most suitable to your current need. [:)]

This is a matter of semantics - but a a better climbing plane like a zero or spitfire generally wouldn't zoom-climb as well as a P-40...because they are lighter (and hence better climbers).

Zoom-climb is using the speed and inertia picked up in a dive and turned into a powerful quick climb pulling out of the dive...it lasts until gravity takes over again. Heavier aircraft that build up speed in a dive get a sort of natural "inertia bonus" until it's all spent and normal physics take over again.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] It hasn't. I was a victim myself a couple of months ago. But that doesn't excuse improper and inflamatory phrases that have nothing to do with the argument. All I ask is keep it a clean fight. Try and keep it on topic. And watch your @##$%^ language. [:D]

Exactly! That's why I'm staying out of this one. Besides, everyone already knows that the Zero was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Which is a false claim. The Zero is far superior to sliced bread.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] Wouldn't that depend on the tactics the pilots use? I would imagine a fast climber , like a Zero or Spitfire might "zoomClimb", while a P-40 would use "Brick tactics". I've always felt that the "best Plane", was the one that you could get that was most suitable to your current need. [:)]

This is a matter of semantics - but a a better climbing plane like a zero or spitfire generally wouldn't zoom-climb as well as a P-40...because they are lighter (and hence better climbers).

Zoom-climb is using the speed and inertia picked up in a dive and turned into a powerful quick climb pulling out of the dive...it lasts until gravity takes over again. Heavier aircraft that build up speed in a dive get a sort of natural "inertia bonus" until it's all spent and normal physics take over again.

[:)] Thank you. I stand corrected.[:)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:)] It hasn't. I was a victim myself a couple of months ago. But that doesn't excuse improper and inflamatory phrases that have nothing to do with the argument. All I ask is keep it a clean fight. Try and keep it on topic. And watch your @##$%^ language. [:D]

Exactly! That's why I'm staying out of this one. Besides, everyone already knows that the Zero was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Which is a false claim. The Zero is far superior to sliced bread.

[:D]I agree....I'd much rather dogfight in a zero than in sliced bread...[:D]

[Rainer]

Sliced Bread climbs much better than a Zero. I did a comprehensive test with my toaster (650 W, Win 98, SP32), and there was no comparison. While 9 our of 7 slices of - unprepared - bread climbed between 2 and 15 inches in total - which comes down to appr. 0.182635543655 centimeters per second, the Zero refused to even leave the toaster. Please note that these are Central European Seconds as defined by Law (Eur.Comm. 123456/54321 Bruxelles, Nov 3, 1782).
Initially the Zero I used for testing did not even fit into the toaster. I therefor prepared the Zero by ways of "cratering". It still refused to climb! Instead, after setting the toaster to operational state, the Zero simply melted down!
Careful examination reveiled that this particular Zero was made of a substance called "plastic" (or something similar). But that is neither explonation nor excuse because this Zero was manufactured by a Japanese company with a high reputation of making first class Zeros.
Conclusion: to claim Zeros climb better than Sliced Bread (whatever the year of production) is a false claim and has to be refused by all people considering themselves to be part of the civilized and tax paying world.

PS: Some may argue that Zeros scaled differently (this one was 1:72) may be able to achieve different and even better results. I doubt that and I am determined to stay with the facts observed. I also recommend strongly to include Toaster Test Environment Results (TTER) in all upcoming discussions.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Rainer, your test does not follow established scientific principles for Toaster Tests. It is well-known that one should use scale models made of materials with characteristics comparable to the materials used for the real object. In case of the Zero, which is known for its fragile lightweight construction, I recommend you use this model for your next comprehensive test:




In a tentative test, this model behaved exactly like a real Zero - it did in fact outclimb the sliced bread, but nonetheless ended like so many of its larger brothers - as a flamer.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Rainer, your test does not follow established scientific principles for Toaster Tests. It is well-known that one should use scale models made from materials with characteristics comparable to the materials used for the real object. In case of the Zero, which is known for its fragile lightweight construction, I recommend you use this model for your next comprehensive test:




In a tentative test, this model behaved exactly like a real Zero - it did in fact outclimb the sliced bread, but nonetheless ended like so many of its larger brothers - as a flamer.

Ahh, I notice you have the Morison collection gracing your shelves. I have the same collection. [:)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Rainer, your test does not follow established scientific principles for Toaster Tests. It is well-known that one should use scale models made from materials with characteristics comparable to the materials used for the real object. In case of the Zero, which is known for its fragile lightweight construction, I recommend you use this model for your next comprehensive test:




In a tentative test, this model behaved exactly like a real Zero - it did in fact outclimb the sliced bread, but nonetheless ended like so many of its larger brothers - as a flamer.

Ahh, I notice you have the Morison collection gracing your shelves. I have the same collection. [:)]

[:D] And I as well. It's dated , but still the best all around reference. [:)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Rainer, your test does not follow established scientific principles for Toaster Tests. It is well-known that one should use scale models made of materials with characteristics comparable to the materials used for the real object. In case of the Zero, which is known for its fragile lightweight construction, I recommend you use this model for your next comprehensive test:




In a tentative test, this model behaved exactly like a real Zero - it did in fact outclimb the sliced bread, but nonetheless ended like so many of its larger brothers - as a flamer.

[8|]I stand corrected. The sliced bread does climb faster. And burn better. The Zero shown would probably melt before burning. [:D]

[Rainer]

You are using GLIDERS! Doesn't count. Dismissed.

[;)]

[Rainer]

There is also a One Volume Book by Morison called "The Two-Ocean War". For those who can or will not afford to buy the whole thing (12 Volumes?) this may be an alternative.

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Sliced Bread climbs much better than a Zero. I did a comprehensive test with my toaster (650 W, Win 98, SP32), and there was no comparison. While 9 our of 7 slices of - unprepared - bread climbed between 2 and 15 inches in total - which comes down to appr. 0.182635543655 centimeters per second, the Zero refused to even leave the toaster. Please note that these are Central European Seconds as defined by Law (Eur.Comm. 123456/54321 Bruxelles, Nov 3, 1782).
Initially the Zero I used for testing did not even fit into the toaster. I therefor prepared the Zero by ways of "cratering". It still refused to climb! Instead, after setting the toaster to operational state, the Zero simply melted down!
Careful examination reveiled that this particular Zero was made of a substance called "plastic" (or something similar). But that is neither explonation nor excuse because this Zero was manufactured by a Japanese company with a high reputation of making first class Zeros.
Conclusion: to claim Zeros climb better than Sliced Bread (whatever the year of production) is a false claim and has to be refused by all people considering themselves to be part of the civilized and tax paying world.

PS: Some may argue that Zeros scaled differently (this one was 1:72) may be able to achieve different and even better results. I doubt that and I am determined to stay with the facts observed. I also recommend strongly to include Toaster Test Environment Results (TTER) in all upcoming discussions.

[:D][:D][:D]

Chez

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Like it, disagree, or not, it's a purely objective fact.

It is also a selectively chosen fact. The 229 doesn't even make it remotely to the list, nor does the Finnish AF come off looking particularly good, because the Finnish AF got clobbered when the Soviet Union stopped fielding the worst aircraft flown in WW2 and started putting trained pilots in them.

The Finnish AF never went up against anyone's "A- Team" until 1943, right about the time they started looking for an "exit strategy."

What do you mean FAF got "clobbered" ? You might want to check your facts bit more.

Lets start:

1939-1940 Winter War

145 combat aircraft against the enemy's 1500-2000 planes.
241 air victories; main fighter Fokker D.XXI,
kill ratio 16:1

1941-1944 Continuation War

40 combat aircraft at the beginning, about 500 at the end of the war
1567 air victories Main fighters: Brewster B-39, kill ratio 32:1 and
Messerschmitt Bf 109 G, kill ratio 25:1.

FAF did not fare too badly with Bf 109 G2/G6 either...25:1 in 1943-44 is very very good. And first 109s came to Finland in 1943 when Soviets already had decent planes.