Author Topic: Super vrs Uber (Read 19300 times)

OttoJ · « **Reply #60 on:** September 29, 2005, 02:43:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Debonair
Except the C-47, which was in combat into the 1970s. So it is settled, C-47 best combat plane of WWII.

The C-47 wasn't a rival of the 109, more like a target, but still you make an excellent example. The C-47 sure wasn't outdated by 1945, despite being a pre-war design.

Bronk · « **Reply #61 on:** September 29, 2005, 06:24:29 AM »

Wasn't the radar equiped [F4U-5n I think] used during the soccer war in 1969 ?
Also the P51
Bronk

Bronk · « **Reply #62 on:** September 29, 2005, 10:44:01 AM »

I forgot to put this in the last post . When was the 109 used in combat last ?

Bronk

F4UDOA · « **Reply #63 on:** September 29, 2005, 12:52:00 PM »

Otto,

The F4U was in US service until almost 1960. It fought in Korea, Vietnam with the French, In the Argentinian Navy until the mid 1960's and fought in the Soccer war between Honduras and El Salvador flying for both countries until approximately 1970.

Funny I don't remember the 109 doing much in the 60's or is that my imagination.

Bruno,

Weren't you the one that said the 109 could out perform the F4U in every catagory?

Other than climb what could the G do better than the F4U-1?

Before I crush you I want to hear you say something else that is completely wrong.

Please list the G-6 performance numbers you are so in love with.

Karnak · « **Reply #64 on:** September 29, 2005, 12:59:49 PM »

F4U-DOA,

They claim that the Bf109 will out turn the F4U. By how much depends on who you ask. Kurfurst may be able to provide some quotes about it.

Bronk · « **Reply #65 on:** September 29, 2005, 01:13:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
F4U-DOA,

They claim that the Bf109 will out turn the F4U. By how much depends on who you ask. Kurfurst may be able to provide some quotes about it.

Listen I might be new here but asking kurfurst ?
According to him the 109 out turned the zero.
Out ranged the 51 with drop tanks.
Out climbed the 163.
And was just as fast as a 262.
I know this is exagerated a bit. I now read all his posts with a grain of salt. I feel the 109 was an exceptional fighter. Just not the end all be all fighter he thinks it was.

Ohh still waiting on the last 109 combat flight .

Bronk

P.S. I believe that the honduran F4U-5n shot down an El Salvadorn P-51 . I'm not sure if it was a D or not.

Charge · « **Reply #66 on:** September 29, 2005, 01:50:30 PM »

Heh, all these "new" guys, talking like forum tards who've seen all...

-C+

Karnak · « **Reply #67 on:** September 29, 2005, 01:55:08 PM »

Bronk,

Oh, I wasn't endorsing the accuracy of any quote or statement he might have, just saying that he might have one. He has a lot of 109 quotes.

And honestly, when limited to just the 109 with no references to the relative capablities of any other aircraft, he has some good data.

When the comparisons come up then there are "issues" and I have been called a Nazi by him on multiple occasions for not bowing to the absolute mastery of the Bf109. Most recently he refered to Goebbels as my master.

straffo · « **Reply #68 on:** September 29, 2005, 01:56:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Vietnam with the French

Are you sure ? I don't remember ,don't you think of Suez ?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #69 on:** September 29, 2005, 01:58:22 PM »

Bronk, how big is that grain of salt?

Soccer War.

El Salvador

- FG-1D: FAS-201 (grey overall, giant title “FAS” in black on rear fuselage and yellow band around engine cowling: it is unclear if this aircraft ever even entered service with FAS: it was damaged during the ferry flight while still in Texas, USA)

- FG-1D: FAS-201/67087 (not operational in 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-202/? (camouflage unknown; shot down by FAH F4U-5 “605”, on 17 July 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-203/67070 (crashed on 19 May 1958)
- FG-1D: FAS-204 (camouflage unknown; shot down by FAH F4U-4 “605”, on 17 July 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-205/? (not operational in 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-207/92460 (decoy, not operational in 1969; reportedly put together from four derelict FG-1Ds, not certain if became operational during the war; fuselage apparently in mid-nite blue, with engine cowling in COIN-grey and part of anti-glare panel; unknown insignia on the fuselage behind the engine, and rest of USN insignia behind the cockpit; cockpit framing also in grey; title “FAS” was apparently applied over the USN insignia on the rear fuselage)
- FG-1D: FAS-208/92489 (not operational in 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-210/? (not operational in 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-213/? (crashed in June 1964)
- FG-1D: FAS-215/92629 (camouflage similar to FAS-219, yellow bands around engine cowling and rear fuselage)
- FG-1D: FAS-219/? (sand and light green over dark green or mid-nite blue over, grey undersurfaces and yellow band around engine cowling; shot down by Honduran AAA, on 17 July 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-220/92697
- TF-51: FAS400
- F-51 Mk.II: FAS-401 (no details known)
- F-51D (P-51D-25-NA): 44-73273/YS-210P/FAS-402 (originally painted grey overall and registered YS-210P; wore no fuselage roundel; black strip on the fin, outlined in yellow – came from the civilian scheme; the aircraft was later camouflaged, and re-camouflaged again when the original colours faded before being sold to the USA, in 1974)
- F-51 Mk.II: FAS-403 (SEA camouflage, white serial, yellow band on the rear fuselage and white skull with wings bellow the engine cowling)
- F-51 Mk.II: FAS-404
- F-51 Mk.II: FAS-405 (SEA camouflage, white serial)
- Cavalier Mustang 750: FAS406 (arrived only on 15 July and did not take part in fighting as it first had to be armed)
- F-51D: FAS-407 (version of SEA camouflage, reportedly shot down on 18 July 1969)
- SNJ-5: 76 (camouflage in dark olive green and grey, serial applied in white on the fin)
- SNJ-5: 78 (camouflage and markings as above)
- C-47: FAS-101 (damaged by FAH F4U on 15 July 1967)

Honduras

- F4U-5N: 601/124724 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 602/124560 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 603/124447 (damaged in rough landing on 13 February 1968, used as decoy at Tegucigalpa during the war)
- F4U-5N/P: 604/123168 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N/P: 605/122184 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 606/124486 “El Guajiro” (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 607/124692 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 608/124493 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 609/124715 (mid-nite blue overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green)
- F4U-4: 610/93788 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 611/93782 (operational in 1969; crashed in 1974)
- F4U-4: 612/92688 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 614/96995 (non-standard camouflage in - what was apparently – mid-grey overall, with black anti-glare panel and standard national markings)
- F4U-4: 615/97280 (seen at Toncontin in 1969, mid-nite blue overall, with white checkerboard over the engine cowling; damaged the FAS C-47 “FAS-101”, on 15 July)
- F4U-4: 616/97320 (under repair during the war, used as decoy at San Pedro Saula)
- F4U-4: 617/97059 (look unknown, but known to have been active during the war: interned in Guatemala after running out of fuel during combat sortie over El Salvador, on 15 July 1969; crashed in 1977)
- F4U-4: 618/96885 (operational in 1969)
- SNJ-4: FAH-202
- SNJ-4: FAH-205
- T-6G: FAH-206
- T-6G: FAH-208
- T-6G: FAH-211
- T-28A: (5)0-272/FAH-212 (COIN-grey overall, engine cowling in yellow)
- T-28A: (5)0-267/FAH-213 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-293(?)/FAH-214 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-234/FAH-215
- T-28A: (5)0-???/FAH-216
- C-47: FAH-301
- C-47: FAH-302
- C-47: FAH-304
- C-47: FAH-305
- C-47: FAH-306
- C-47: FAH-307

from http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_156.shtml

Bronk · « **Reply #70 on:** September 29, 2005, 02:11:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Bronk, how big is that grain of salt?

How big do you have? Ohh and thanks for the link.

Bronk:aok

humble · « **Reply #71 on:** September 29, 2005, 02:44:13 PM »

I'm always amazed when I read the "uber 109" threads. The reality is quite simple....the plane was overmatched in BoB and it never got any better. Obviously the above statement will obviously draw alot of hostile comments but if you look at it logically its true.

First and formost the plane didnt have the range for offensive operations. This was never addressed at any time...

The germans hit on the better armourment 1st but never really improved the planes hitting power....which doomed it as a bomber interceptor.

The planes limited visability hampered it throughout its service life (although it did get better with the galland hood)...

The exceptionally narrow landing gear caused high loses throughout the war...

Its lack of ground attack capability further limited its role

So you have a plane with significant shortcomings which effectively cost the germans any chance at "winning" the BoB. The same plane then sits 26 miles from Great Britain from late 1940 thru mid 1944 and is both unable to project force at any time to GB or realistically defend the occupied countries from airborn attack. This is a harbringer of germanies defeat later on when they were unable to defeat unescorted bombers in 1943 or seriously contest allied escorts in 1943 or 1944. The tremendous dependence on an inferior plane lost the war for the germans long before D-day......

Bronk · « **Reply #72 on:** September 29, 2005, 02:53:19 PM »

Get ready for it.

Bronk

F4UDOA · « **Reply #73 on:** September 29, 2005, 03:12:58 PM »

Karnak,

The 109 out turning an F4U would be an interesting challenge. A 109F or early probably could, maybe even a G2, I would have to see the wing loading. But I am pretty sure that the later models G6 and up would have a pretty hard time doing that even without the F4U using it's combat flaps.

I don't beleive the people I am arguing with are either trying very hard or don't know very much about what they speak.

Humble,

You did a much better job than me in explaining why the 109 was outdated almost before it ever got started. The small design with high wingloading left no room for growth and limited the capability of the aircraft before if ever left the drawing board.

Is Germany really just 26 miles from England?? So much for the myth of German engineering.

Kurfurst,

The point of my original post was simply that the war was really over by mid 1944 anyway. All of the newer German designs were on hand for combat because

1. They were already at the front.
2. The aircraft the allies had were doing a fine job.

The aircraft I mention were on there way to the front when the war ended. Since the war was effectively over in 1944 anyway why not have a 1945 Super Vrs Uber theater were the best late war Axis planes can fight the Best late war allied planes.

What I cannot stand is the weekly "the 109 needs another 2" of Boost, it's a conspiracy" post". The aircraft in AH unless there is a major oversight are a fair representation not an optimal representation.

There are several less than optimal features on the F4U that could be changes or added but you don't see those threads popping up every day.

humble · « **Reply #74 on:** September 29, 2005, 03:19:45 PM »

One of the more interesting facts in luftwabble history is the very very strong push made by factions of the luftwaffe to replace the 109 with a german made C205. The 205 was regarded by the germans to be superior across the board to the 109....the combination of politics and retooling defeated the effort. But a "upengined" 205 would have been a much formidable plane then the K-4 or G10.....