Now that the dust has settled, was she, the Hawker Hurricane, the greatest fighter of the 2nd world war?
The greatest fighter of WW2 was Audie Murphy.
>>65204969Kill yourself, faggot.
It was good for what it was, by 1942 it was obsolete.The specific time interval 1938—1943, about five years, was an incredible one for advancements in aviation structures, powerplants, engineering design and technology overall. Neck-snappingly fast progression of everything
>>65204968No the P-47 was.
>>65205019retard
>>65204968the Battle Of Britain was both its finest hour and its swan songalthough the IIC was pretty fuckin cool in the non-European theatres
Hurricats are cool
>>65204997Not just aviation. A tank that would rule the battlefield in 1938 was a deathtrap in '43.
The Bf/Me-109 has a decent claim for longevity, but at the same time the late model 109s had different engines, wings, tails, armament so at some point you have to ask whether it can even be considered the same aircraft. Otherwise I think I'd go with >>65205019pic unrelated
>>65204968Anyone who starts a thread with the words "now that the dust has settled" is a faggot plebbitor and should fuck off back there.
>>65205336>FEED ME OSCARS
>>65204978>t. Seething 6'0" (basically a manlet)
>>65204968Yes. Everyone who played Secret Weapons Over Normandy knew this 20 years ago.
>>65204968No. On account of not having a radial engine.
>>65205329I get what you're saying but not in direct analogous proportion, magnitude or parallel. Aviation technology advancement was a vast, broad and exceedingly rapid one and had direct spinoffs into and purposes/application for non-military aircraft. Tank warfare was relatively a new concept in itself and in the 1920s/30s nobody really knew what to do with it (doctrinally in particular, which drove the kind of tanks that'd even be designed/built) or where it was going to go, overall. Also the technology (apart from scaling-up of designs and general improvements, size-power increases of automotive powerplants, armament, armor thickness etc.) itself didn't really change that much. In aviation you had all-stressed-skin airframes, turbojet engines, perspex transparencies, pressurized cabins just to name a few.
>>65206038>radial engineP-51 Mustang, in its later B-C-D variant considered one of the best all round fighters of the war, had a modified upgraded version of Hurricane's engine. The best piston engine single seat fighter of the entire war, P-38 Lightning, had twin liquid cooled engines. The Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Germany's best piston engine fighter, had both radial and liquid cooled powerplants<--latter incarnation of which was considered the finest variant(s) of that airplane.
>>65204968no
>>65206279Yes, but have you considered that radials sound cooler?
>>65206365They're nice. Idk if they 'sound cooler' listen to a P-38 and its twin turbosupercharged Allisons sometime. Radials tend to have this large scale, resonant booming drone overpressure sound.
>>65204968Contrarians keep mistaking its numerical superiority in the early war for it being mechanically superior.
>>65207094>Video gamers keep mistaking its numerical superiority in the early war [...]ftfy
>>65205336At least the 109 still had the same size and shape and engine from 1939 to 1945. The engine just went through many upgrades including two name changes. Arguably late war Spitfire was slightly more different to early war Spitfire than late 109 to early 109. A third contender could be the Yak.
>>65207138>109>Spitfire>'arguably'>'at least' (wrong, the G/K 109s were different size shape and engine)Nah, same criteria applies to both late-versions. Overpowered, engine that was never intended for them, stayed too long at the party, a Spit / 109 too far, same mid-1930s design narrow-track outward retracting main landing gear, for both.
