Which unglamorous non-protagonist allied fighter would you rather bring into hostile airspace?
>>65196566I will never, ever stop loving the P-40, but the Wildcat is probably the correct choice.
>>65196566I'd pick the P-40 over any of the others in a heartbeat. Good agility, doesn't lock up in a dive, enough .50 for strafing and horsepower to carry enough bombs to seriously fuck up a formation cought in march. Wildcat would be a close second, followed by the Hurricaine, and then with great resignation and a double-check on my will, the Yak.
>>65196566define>non-protagonistand anyway I don't think you will get much of an answer because I wouldn't drive anything that isn't Anglo-built, and they're the major protagonists of WW2.
>>65196626Planes that don't get to flown by the heroes in hollyjew movies, or don't get boomers say "IT WON THE WAR" on history channel.
>>65196631of the 4 fighters you posted, only the P-40 even qualifies, but then it's a piece of shitI'm gonna cheat: it's literally named "-fighter" but it's not really
>>65196566Depends where I'm fighting. Probably the Hurricane if I'm going up high and the Wildcat down low.
Arsenal V.B. 10
>>65196566Hurricane but spurdo so I can shoot communists and not get raped after the war.
>>65196631>Planes that don't get to flown by the heroes in hollyjew moviesSo not the P40 then...
sweeps away all in OP
>>65196566of what you posted the P-40 is the best, but even it was out classed really early on in the war.the Yak is also okay if the light armament isn't a problem, but that's all it has... not even bombs
>>65196566does the P-47 counts? I don't think I've ever seen a single movie where the protagonists flies it, it's always the Mustang, P40 if it's early war or the various naval fighter if it's in the Pacific.Meanwhile this fat ugly pig served the US through the entire war, was used in a variety of different roles and is perhaps the most American of all American fighters, the pickup truck of the sky, where the Mmustang is maybe the muscle car of fighter planes.Love the jug
>>65197060Also look how fucking big is it!!!
>P-47>entire warNo.Thunderbolt is a late war fighter.
>>65197060>I don't think I've ever seen a single movie where the protagonists flies ithttps://impdb.org/index.php?title=Fighter_Squadron
The risk of cooling system damage in liquid-cooled engine aircraft was apparently a major consideration when adopting carrier-based aircraft, but was it not considered a problem for land-based aircraft?
>>65197061>pilots used to joke that you could dodge enemy fire by simply running around in the cockpit
>>65197156If battle damage forced you down over land you were not likely to drown.But the radial vs inline debate is much more complex than that.For carriers you had the damage aspect, but also space, complexity and additional issues with stowage of ethylene glycol etc.The US inline vs radials also break into tje whole turbosupercharger vs supercharger-debate as well
>>65196566P47
>>65196944cute recce bird, but OP said fighter.
>>65197175Holy fuck I lost it.
>>65197061>>65197175>she thicc af
>>65197546
>>65197546>Girthmaster has entered the chat
>>65197546Alexander Kartveli liked 'em T H I C C.
Mid-engined
>>65197562>>65197599>>65197652>>65197659Big Beautiful Warbird
>>65196566Anyone not saying the Whirlwind is an absolute poofter
>>65197729>Now this is pod racing!
>>65196569>>65196620This
>>65197060Greg's Airplanes has gaslit me into believing the P-47 is the greatest plane of all time to the point where I just assumed it carried hero status.
>>65196566Which version of each though? Cause the Hurricane IIC absolutely slaps hard with 4x 20mm cannons?>>65196642Its a fighter in the sense it will fight the absolute shit of everything it comes across and that includes challenging flak ships in a contest to see who has more firepower.>>65197060You know what I have always assumed it was popular but thinking about it no it really isn't. It was also heavily used by the RAF as well as the French. Pretty much everyone who flew it loved it. She was definitely a big girl.>>65197729She was a thing of beauty.
>>65197060A fighter with the range to escort bombers to Germany and back too. The dipshits in the bomber mafia later lied to cover their asses and said such a thing wasn't possible until the P-51's with drop tanks came along.Also the fuckin thing could carry a bigger bomb payload then german dedicated medium bombers
>>65196566Wildcat for me
>>65197060Growing up is realizing how awesome the jug is. It became my favorite fighter of the war.
>>65196566the humble black widow
>>65196566When about?If 1940-ish, then the correct answer is none of those, but the Rogozarski IK-3 (though some of this may very well be propaganda). Consulting my library, (book titled War Planes of the Second World War: Fighters), it is stated that it was an aircraft that put up a valiant resistance to the Luftwaffe and sources state that the 13 aircraft shot down 11 enemies over 11 days, but all airframes were torched or blown up before the airfield could be taken, so despite this.One pilot, Milislav Semiz, was credited with four kills in the type and would very well have become an ace given a few more days.If this was later war, then my choice would be the de Havilland Hornet, but since this aircraft did not enter service until 1946, then probably the P-63. Maintenance nightmare, but well balanced aerodynamically and both fast and nimble.Bonus mention to the VL Pyörremyrsky, despite being an axis aircraft, Finland was "one of the good guys".
>>65197546>top 10 BRVTAL mog
i hate the ground and everything on it
>>65198631>sources state that the 13 aircraft shot down 11 enemies over 11 daysgoing by the average air victory overreporting, this means it shot down 4 enemies at best
>>65198167Greg did way too many Thunderbolt videos; he's entertaining but also delusional.
>>65196642if we are broadening things like that then I'm taking a mosquito on the basis of sheer survivability, it think it had a fighter variant and a know it had a bomber variant which is fighting things on the ground
>>65198986>it think it had a fighter variantthe Mosquito became the Night Fighter mainstay at the end of the war, and the Mk VI was called a "fighter-bomber" so if the Hurricane IIC is accepted then by the same token the Mosquito ought to beHOWEVER, I object to allowing either the Mossie or the Hurrie ITT, because OP said>Planes that>don't get boomers say "IT WON THE WAR" on history channeland the Mosquito is unquestionably the best multi-role plane of the war, and the Hurricane Battle Of Britain revisionism has been going on so hard that people are starting to forget that the Spitfire engaged most of the fighters in the BOB while the Hurricane was left to bringing down bombers, because the RAF knew that it didn't have a tactical edge over the 109E
>>65199007>night fighter variantthat's a good point, If I'm picking a plane to fuck around in enemy airspace in during the second world war I'm picking one with radar
>>65198957Yeah, but it is a neat story nevertheless. This has inspired me to buy even more reading material, so I will go to the book shop when it opens on Tuesday.I am even tempted to import some model kits from Europe of the really autistic aircraft I want to build (then again, I have a ton of stuff looking me in the eye begging to be built).
>>65199007>Hurricane Battle Of Britain revisionism has been going on so hard that people are starting to forget that the Spitfire engaged most of the fighters in the BOB while the Hurricane was left to bringing down bombers,WRONG. Looking at the number of German fighters shot down and not including bombers:>Spitfire: 250-300 confirmed kills>Hurricane: 222 killsThe Spitfire barely leads the fighters kill board and Hurricanes didn't "only bring down bombers".
>>65199078post hand and smoke detector
>>65196642Fudd. 1994 History Channel aficiondo.
>>65196566I'm not even joking about it.
>>65196947You need to read what contemporary pilots said about the P-40 (and F4F-3).
>>65199093If my goal was to survive instead of getting kills, yeah I'd like to be super low and super low.
>>65196566Yak-3 or LA-7 for sure.
>>65199093Was about to post this myself.Real OG early war allied plane
>in service most of the war>over 3000 made>served everywhere>no one knows it exists outside of ww2 autists I only found out about it because I was looking up the modern Typhoon and saw it had the same name.
>>65199266I love these little buggers like you wouldn't believe
>>65199280I played with it in Fly Aces High 1, 2, and 3. It's known for boom and zoom tactics in that game. A game that has no bias or tiers, planes act as they should. A game that started in texas, programmed by people who own an airfield and fly a few of these actual planes. I disagree on the handling of the Bf190's though.Typhoons had two issues, they had a hard time pulling out of dives. The other is that they are not the best energyfighter when matched with an equal using a '109. Especially the K. You have a super hard time trying to do a controlled stall.Otherwise great plane, deadly guns and great visibility.
>>65198986>>65199007Not only that but the Mossie was just so fast it could run away from most things. Plus you had the bonus of being able to chat to your buddy while winning
>>65198986>>65199007>>65199510If we're broadening it to that extent, I'll take a PR Mk.34A and just do high altitude photo reconnaissance
>>65199521Or there's a Tsetse, so you could give tanks, planes and submarines are really, really bad day
>>65199524*trains, not planes
>>65199524>you could give tanks, planes and submarines are really, really bad dayhence again my choice, a Beaufighter
>>65199533They were always up to something fairly uneventful. :^)
>>65197531>recce birdNot what that pic is.North American NA-83, also known as the Mustang Mk I from the second production batch for the Royal Air Force. Pictured in USAAF insignia in a test flight from Inglewood, California October 1942.Almost seven hundred Mustang Mk Is and IAs were delivered in the Lend-Lease program to the Royal Air Force. The 150 Mk IAs were armed with four 20 mm cannon (unlike the machine gun-armed Mk I in that pic) and fifty-five of those were eventually requisioned out of the RAF L-L shipment for USAAF procurement; two more were retained for NAA. To replace the USAAF purloin, the RAF were given fifty of a slighly different additional model designated Mustang Mk II, which had another armament change consisting of solely 4 × .50-cal wing guns; the Mk Is had those plus four .30-cal (two in nose and two more outboard of the .50s in wings), along with slightly more powerful V-1710-81 engine. This Mk II RAF plane was equivalent to a new Mustang for the USAAF designated P-51A.The Mustang was never intended or designed as an American mil aircraft but its L-L manufacture in moderate numbers for the Royal Air Force had garnered sidelong attention from the USAAF (who were, officially, still ignoring the foreign-plane program) and even back in 1941 two Mk Is had been delivered to the USAAF as XP-51s; flight test report produced in mid-1942 of these aircraft showed it had high performance. The Mk IA cannon-armed one hundred and fifty aircraft—out of which 55 retained by USAAF—batch had its bill paid not on Lend-Lease but U.S.A. tab on behalf of the English customer, and by 1942 the U.S. was an official participant in war with a great need for its own combat aircraft of all types; even so the Material Command showed lukewarm interest in the North American fighter. The 55 P-51s (<--its no-letter designation) were pressed into USAAF service as low-level ground attack and K-24 camera equipped behind-pilot-seat armed reconnaissance birds.
>>65197531>>65199781>The 55 P-51s (<--its no-letter designation) were pressed into USAAF service as low-level ground attack and K-24 camera equipped behind-pilot-seat armed reconnaissance birdsPictured is P-51-2 (no-letter)USAAF serial number 41-37321Airplane is one of the ^above mentioned fifty-five repossessed RAF Mustang Mk IAs (North American Aviation company designation NA-91) in flight near Inglewood, California fall 1942.No camera visible behind the pilot. The K-24 camera installation aircraft were in early 1943 given official designation F-6A for deployment in North Africa with 12th Army Air Force.
>>65196944>>65199781>North American NA-83, also known as the Mustang Mk I from the second production batch for the Royal Air Force. Pictured in USAAF insignia in a test flight from Inglewood, Californiachecked, I mis-captioned date of this pic. Based on the red-dot insignia it has to be early 1942 since it's from the second production batch of NA-83 aircraft (the first batch of Mk Is was being delivered in October1941 previous year)
>>65199781RAF used mustang mk 1s for recce, not as fighters, because, while they had great low altitude performance, they sucked at altitude.
>>65199280Immediately Germany surrendered they were all removed from service to be destroyed.Sounds like they were a necessary evil, a very effective one.
>>65199859Because everyone was switching to jets. Even Mosquitos were dumped by the job lot. The RAF decided that they would only keep their absolute best prop fighter, the Hawker Tempest, and there were enough of those to go around for the post-war period.
>>65199870Plenty of props made it into the fifties even later, hell Brits even made a few new ones.Wyvern and Gannet come to mind.
>>65199877>Wyvern and GannetCarrier props lasted a bit longer, naturally>Plenty of props made it into the fifties even laterIn specialist roles, yesA lot of night fighters and photorecon made it, iircBut there was little need for such as the Typhoon, which was over-optimised for low-level flying(A mistake that would somewhat ironically be repeated with the Tornado)
>>65199877Tbf, turboprops were a decent blend of jet and props
>>65199842>mk 1s>for recceNo, they used Mk 1As for reconnaissance.18 is the minimum age to post on this website
