#1 piston fighter?

Sad to see that the simple question for the #1 fighter plane turns
into a battle that reveals the inability of some poeple to get along
with any kind of different opinion:

Person 1: What is the #1 fighter plane?
P2: the Mustang
P3: you're damn right man!!
p2: it's a pleasure to talk to you
p4: i think there could be... perhaps.... different plane....???
p2: what do you know
p3: exactly get lost you revisionist nazi
p2: shXX up or we come back and get the job finished

and so on

With respect to the question: there isn't any best fighter. Every type
had its shortcomings. The soviet La7 and Yak3 were pretty much
superior to everything else down low but not competitive at alt. The
late Spitfires and FW's were probably better than the Mustang 1on1 but
with limited range.

Don't trust anybody saying this is the winner hands down.
It's just his sole opinion and nobody here flew one of these planes in
combat.

regards

Jan Fuhrmann


"Edward French" wrote in message ...
Hello All,

Ok, is there a singular Numero Uno air-to-air ww2 pistoned-fighter?

I figure that "reliable performance with lethality" has gotta be considered
60% of the truth. Ease of manufacture, versatility, easy to pilot,
durability, etc. making up the 40%.

I'm hearing that, in all altitudes, the FW190 did the job best. How about
the HELLCAT?


--hug the day

Subject: #1 piston fighter?
From: (Jan)
Date: 7/10/03 4:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

on't trust anybody saying this is the winner hands down.
It's just his sole opinion and nobody here flew one of these planes in
combat.

regards

Jan Fuhrmann

TaDaaaa!


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 10 Jul 2003 16:55:05 -0700, (Jan) wrote:


With respect to the question: there isn't any best fighter. Every type
had its shortcomings. The soviet La7 and Yak3 were pretty much
superior to everything else down low but not competitive at alt. The
late Spitfires and FW's were probably better than the Mustang 1on1 but
with limited range.

Don't trust anybody saying this is the winner hands down.
It's just his sole opinion and nobody here flew one of these planes in
combat.


Well, the P-51H was a significant improvement on the P-51D.
Indeed, the La-7 was a monster down low.

Maybe few if any here have actually flown these aircraft.
However, you can fly them via some extraordinary simulators.

Go to the Hitech Creations website listed in my sigfile and download
the free software. That's right, it's free. You can fly offline all you want.
You can fly online for two weeks at no charge. You'll be able to compare
the best WWII fighters head to head using the most accurate flight models
in the PC flight sim industry. And, it'll cost you nothing but your time.

My regards,
Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

"Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message
...
On 10 Jul 2003 16:55:05 -0700, (Jan) wrote:



Well, the P-51H was a significant improvement on the P-51D.
Indeed, the La-7 was a monster down low.

Maybe few if any here have actually flown these aircraft.
However, you can fly them via some extraordinary simulators.


Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown flew one and his view of the aircraft
was as follows

Quote
The La-7 was to me a complete revelation with regard to its
handling characteristics and performance which were quite superb.

It had all the qualities necessary for a fine combat fighter but not
the equipment. Its firepower and sighting equipment were below
par, its wooden construction would have withstood little punishment,
the pilot was poorly protected and the blind flying and navigation
instrumentation was appalingly basic.

Having flown nine contemporary Russian front line aircraft
I began to understand how the Luftwaffe pilots on the eastern
front clocked up such huge victory scores, but in the case of the
La-7 they would have had to work hard for their money.
/Quote

Source: Testing For Combat

Keith

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:13:17 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message
. ..
On 10 Jul 2003 16:55:05 -0700, (Jan) wrote:



Well, the P-51H was a significant improvement on the P-51D.
Indeed, the La-7 was a monster down low.

Maybe few if any here have actually flown these aircraft.
However, you can fly them via some extraordinary simulators.


Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown flew one and his view of the aircraft
was as follows

Quote
The La-7 was to me a complete revelation with regard to its
handling characteristics and performance which were quite superb.

It had all the qualities necessary for a fine combat fighter but not
the equipment. Its firepower and sighting equipment were below
par, its wooden construction would have withstood little punishment,
the pilot was poorly protected and the blind flying and navigation
instrumentation was appalingly basic.

Having flown nine contemporary Russian front line aircraft
I began to understand how the Luftwaffe pilots on the eastern
front clocked up such huge victory scores, but in the case of the
La-7 they would have had to work hard for their money.
/Quote

Source: Testing For Combat

Keith



Lavochkin used alloy wing spars (I believe they were actually box spars) to
add strength and reduce weight. Windtunnel testing of the La-5FN showed
that refinements to the fighter's aerodynamics could significantly improve
performance (which was pretty good as it was). Thus was born the La-7.
Below 5,000 feet, its over-all performance was only exceeded by the Grumman
F8F Bearcat and the Hawker Tempest Mk.V.

History shows that the Lavochkins proved to be very durable and battle damage
repairs were easier and required less technically skilled personnel.

My regards,
Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com