Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

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".

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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.

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.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

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."

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
It was indeed one of the best and one of my favorites. However, the short range and high pilot skill required to master the 109 made it obsolete in terms of a modern total war.

Best fighter means so many things and there are so many criteria quoted from the posters here. However, as I said before, any plane that did not have moderate to long range must be disqualifed. The 109 and many other fine planes listed here did not have the capability to project air power into enemy territory. You can't win a war without this ability. It is like having a football team that only plays defence. Sooner of later, you will get scored on and lose the game.

Another point that bears mentioning in this thread is that the human factor must be a consideration when picking the "best fighter". In a total war sitation such as WWII, equipment that favored the "average" user is always superior. The reason being that a long grinding war tends to produce much more average manpower talent than skilled. Death and attrition tends to use men up, leaving a greener pool of replacements. The 109 for all of it's excellence was regarded as a tough plane to master and a deadly tool in the hands of an expert pilot. However, the 190 was generally considered a much more suitable plane because it was easier to fly and thus more forgiving to the average pilot. And for every good pilot, there had to be at least ten times that number of average or below average pilots.

A "hot" plane is not necessarily the best plane. My two cents anyway.

With that line of reasoning, a Sherman would be a better tank than a Panther. I reject the line of reasoning that requires strategic, operational or other irrelevant considerations. The question was "best fighter", you are more in the "most useful fighter"-territory with your line of reasoning. And while that is all and well from an overall strategic point of view, the purpose of this thread is to determine which fighter is the best.

Nedless to say, that question must center on the ability of the plane, not the quality of the pilot, not the ability to produce it, not the amount of fuel it could be tanked with.

The analogy would be that we are comparing swords here, you are talking about how it is best not to be surrounded or outnumbered or starving while using that sword. An interesting discussion for sure, but irrelevant to the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

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.

Don't bother arguing with diehl... If your facts don't agree with his made-up "facts" then they're just not going to register for him...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Inconceivable!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

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.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

And if you do get the better of him , he will serously bad mouth you at madcow.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

And if you do get the better of him , he will serously bad mouth you at madcow.

Ooooo! Now there's a fate worse than death.