Dont mind us, just the best fighter of WWII coming through
>>29361365
But that's wrong.
>>29361365
Usually I disagree with the OP of these threads on principle, but with the P51 theres really no room for argument, it did it's role better than any other plane of the war and it's only fault was not to be in full production sooner than it was.
You can go ahead and shut the fuck up already.
Still wrong, undermen.
>>29361365
Entered service in January 1942, you realize the war was already won at that point right?
>not the meme machine
>>29361414
not rly
>>29361427
The war was won the instant the US entered.
That being said I don't think Germany would have gotten much farther into Russia with Adolf "invade a near Arctic country without coats" Hitler.
>>29361414
Poor high altitude performance, outmanuvered by the p47. The fucking p47 fatass!!!
>>29361445
not taking Poland before Czechoslovakia and then waging war on the Soviets first was a huge fuck up, at least France and Britain would likely have helped with an anti-communist campaign
None of these fire 4,800 rounds a minute
>>29361414
>Mfw completely inferior to the P51.
>>29361489
Yeah but none of them shoot little tiny baby caliber like the spitfire
>>29361365
The P-51 was great in its role, but I think the Spitfire is absolutely untouchable.
Is pic possibly the best fighter of the Pacific?
>>29361529
thats why they have 20mm cannons
>>29361549
Coming through
just sharing a neat pic
>>29361365
i would agree...i would never have been born if it wasn't for that plane...dad would not have made it home from the war.
>>29361365
Sorry senpai but the Mustang, just like the Sherman, wasn't the best. It was good enough.
>>29361445
> Implying the Soviet union wouldn't steamroll US/UK forces in event of operation unthinkable.
>>29361365
This is objectively the best fighter in all of ww2 even if it was super late
>>29361815
>implying a nation that already lost 1/4th it's population and relied entirely on charity to feed and clothe itself could resist operation unthinkable
Russia survived because we helped them. We helped them because they were the enemy of our enemy.
All in all it worked out ok.
But Germany took all of western Russia, which was the vast majority of Russia's factories and farmlands.
A Russian nation displaced entirely into Siberia without outside help could not resist nor win wars for very long.
>>29361815
Oh slavboos, forgetting what atom bombs are and needing to copy US tech because you were too drunk to make your own.
>>29361472
Again, blame Hitler
>>29361365
Those who want to pick up women fly the Mustang.
Those who want to come home to their women fly the Jug.
>>29361905
You're somehow insinuating that Comintern Allies and Axis all go to war against each other. No, after Germany is defeated and carved up, With Soviet industry fucked but still able to compete with British, they could easily push the Allies out of Europe if they wanted to. However, it would lead to US VS Russia, as no matter what, industrial might of US was silly strong.
There is some alt history on that, especially Harris's "Fatherland" in which Soviet union is displaced, but still managing to wage guerilla warfare with help from US.
>>29361365
Oh please, pretty boy. Workhorse coming through.
>>29361926
Kek, you do realize it takes some time to build a nuke, right? First two got used up, then it would have to be transferred across atlantic, then sent on plane, over endless Soviet territory, then into Moscow. Yeah, good luck.
Not a slavboo, but that's fucking retarded
>>29361970
>people don't realize that the US had another nuke ready to go ten days after Nagasaki, and then three a month for the two months after that
>people don't realize that the US had B-29s for this exact purpose and had gotten very good at strategic bombing
You're acting like the US government didn't immediately start thinking about how to kill the Reds, the second the atom bomb was invented
Go be retarded somewhere else
>>29361769
There's no fighter in the war that combined performance, reliability, affordability, and most importantly long range like the Mustang.
If your armed forces could only build one single engine fighter, that fighter is either the Mustang, Corsair, or Typhoon.
>>29361815
Implying a flight of silverplate B-29's wouldn't pay Moscow a visit, then Leningrad, then Nizghy Tagil, then...
![1418140188897[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/N10SIQ9.jpg "1418140188897[1].jpg")
>>29361427
>triggered
>>29361968
The entirety of the 8th fighter command, bar the 56th Fighter Group, consisted of P-51s by the end of 1944, it was also starting to become a majority fighter in the other numbered air forces in the ETO, such as the 9th Air Force or the 12th Air Force.
>>29362070
>Typhoon
>Good for anything other than ground attack
I don't jnow why they give it so much credit. Down low un a straight line, it was a real beast. The thick wings really hindered it's performance in the vertical however and that led to it being a below average dogfighter, it really wasn't worth a shit beyond a strike fighter.
>>29362297
Bleh, not typhoon, Tempest.
>>29362319
Tempest is an excellent fighter. I am also not too fond of it's performance at altitude. P-51s with Packard engines (except for RAF Mustang f.mk.IIIs, boosted to 25lbs of manifold pressure) struggled at low to medium altitudes. The Mustang really shined at hgh altitude where it easily outperformed it's competition in all aspects. The Tempest was effectively the opposite, having absolutely blistering low altitude performance, but poor altitude characteristics. Interestingly this wasn't really a hinderance; the V1s flew at low level and German jets were easier to catch at take off and landing making this absolute beast of a fighter particularly successful in these tasks. In regards t the aforementioned boosted mustangs, the 150 octane fuel made it proably one of the fastest piston engined fighters ever at low altitude.
>>29362093
>>29361365
P designation
>not F
Best fighter....
>>29361365
>best fighter
REEEEEEE
By what standards? There were multiple "best" fighters in WW2, all depending on exactly what role you're looking at.
For example, slavshit (Yak-3) probably holds the title for best low-altitude fighter of the war, but it'd be shit at the same altitudes the P-51 operated at.
>>29362445
If it makes you feel any better they gained the F designation in 1947 anyway and F-51Ds fought in the Korean war.
>>29362505
That fighter is probably one of the hands down worst fighters of the war. It barely made parity with its competition, even in its later iterations.
>>29361633
your dad is a faggot
>>29362505
I would consider Fighter A better than Fighter B if Fighter A can do Fighter B's job better than the inverse.
A Yak-3 has a notable advantage over P-51 at lower altitudes.
A Yak-3 literally falls out of the air if it tried to tangle with P-51's at their preferred altitude.
A P-51 can act as a point interceptor, it can also stay over the battlefield for an extended duration and provide CAP.
A yak-3 trying to escort bombers into Germany runs out of fuel somewhere over France.
I consider P-51 better than Yak-3 because P-51 can do a Yak's job only somewhat worse, Yak-3 can't do P-51's job at all.
>>29362505
I'm pretty sure N1K would spank Yak-3 in a low altitude fight. It was only slightly heavier, but had a much more powerful (but unreliable) engine, and had better wing loading.
>>29362515
Post-ww2, not w/in the framework of the question. And I don't think they reclassfied the p38.
>>29362633
It wasn't a great fighter to begin and end with; the Yak's performance at it's very best iteration was comparable to an FW-190A8 (with a much superior rate of climb, mind). Without the fire-power. With crude instrumentation. With crude construction and resulting in poor reliability including wing failure. The reason it looks so good on paper is because it was typically flown by veterans/elite unites such as Normandie Nieman.
>>29362680
They must have, they served till 1949, at least with fledgling Air National Guard units.
>>29361994
Just blatantly ignoring everything else I wrote. How are you going to get that to moscow without ICBM's. You gonna somehow fly a B52 from Nothern Norway or Berlin to Moscow?
Kill yourself.
>>29362905
B-52? just B-29's will do.
B-29 has enough range to hit Moscow from Paris. In late 1946, the Soviets don't really have anything that can stop a B-29 escorted by P-51's.
>>29361365
Mustang had best range and acceptable performance
Corsair was sexier and performed better aerodynamically
>>29361970
Surely you realize the US had several nuclear weapons ready soon after Japan surrendered.
Surely you understand why it would be difficult for Russians to intercept the B-29 on its way to Moscow.
Surely you wouldn't talk down to people while being completely clueless, not on the internet.
>>29362993
>Corsair was sexier and performed better aerodynamically
Debatable on both points, if you don't think pic related was pure sex then there's something wrong with you.
Mustang had far less drag than F4U, as a result, despite having a weaker engine, the P-51 could climb and fly faster, fly farther and higher. The Japanese pilots rated P-51's as being a tougher opponent.
>>29361365
>best fighter
>shows mustang's
Now ain't that just cute
U r funneh guys
>>29361381
No forward firing guns.... WTF?!!
>>29361412
gonna need to actually partake in the war before you call it great, senpai
>>29361365
For the Emperor!
>>29361365
>Not Tempest
>Not Ta 152
>Not Griffon Spit
>Not N1K
>Not Ki-84
>Not Meteor
>Not Me 262
Trash thread
>>29361549
>Spitfire is absolutely untouchable.
I like it too, but the spit got shit on by BF109's bruv.
>>29365304
>not even the text version
>>29361412
I mean I love the bearcat it's my favorite naval aircraft of wwii, sadly it didn't get to dominate the skies of the Pacific even if it had it would be doing more kamikaze defense then really dogfighting but still a lovely plane.
>>29361406
I would like to shit on OP to as it would be better easy to call us fan boy. But the p-51 was rather advanced for its time. Extremely aerodynamic and quick. Really a superb craft. My favorite plane of wwii is still the p-47m since I love the jug
F-22 best fighter of WW2
>>29361365
That's not the P-51 with the Merlin engine though.
>>29365523
pretty sure no Allison-powered Mustang had bubble canopy, so that would make it a Packard/Merlin Mustand
>>29361839
Not a fighter, anon. That's an interceptor and was terrible against other fighters, great against bombers though.
Good ole Chuck Yeager:
>Nov 6, 1944: First time I saw a jet, I shot it down.
>>29365346
Only when it was Spitfire V vs Bf-109F. Every other variant outperformed the 109 is every aspect except dive.
>>29362264
>What are production and running costs
>>29365330
>Forgetting about A7M
>>29361365
Make room for the fighter that outmatched Spitfires. Just a shame Italy didn't have the industrial capability to make more.
>>29365550
Yeah anything B and onwards was a Packard engine.
>>29362505
Seeing as the P-51's speed was superior at all altitudes to the Yak-3 I'm gonna back the 51, it's sea level max speed near matches the Yak-3's max speed at 13k
Being able to pick and choose your fights is king for any fighter.
>>29365861
Re.2001 which was basically the MC202 with a bigger engine.
>>29361414
Even if you are a Naziboo, that's not even the best GERMAN fighter of WW2
Posted from my fighter that only flew after air superiority was gained and were fighting poorly trained German pilots after their aces were all killed.
If it didn't fight in the BoB it isn't the best fighter of WW2. :?)
Hurricane master race coming through.
>>29365981
What would be the best German fighter of WWII? The Fw-190 were interceptors as well as the Jet craft. Also not the guy you replied to.
>>29366017
The Fw-190, the 109 had an edge at high altitudes for most of their service lives but the introduction of the 190d changed this, although not many were built by the end of hostilities.
>>29361815
Do you have any idea how stretched Russian logistics were when they stormed Berlin?
>>29361815
>Soviet Union steamroll US/UK
>Couldn't even blockade Berlin properly
>>29365560
Most WWII fighters were never designed as fighters but rather as interceptors. Because most people in the world's air forces back then believed in force projection by air power (Billy Mitchell, Hugh Trenchard and that Italian whos name escapes me). As a result fighter aircraft designed and built in the thirties all had similar characteristics; very fast, very fast rate of climb, well armed, and range was short because they were designed for point defense. This is because they weren't designed to go and kill other fighters but rather to kill bombers.
Two of the most famous and best 'fighters' of wwii, were designed as interceptors, the Spitfire and the Bf-109. The fact that both fighters turned out to be fantastic dogfighters was never on purposely designed into the aircraft. Both would see service in their inted role before being redeployed as 'fighter interceptors', to kill bomber escort fighters.
>>29361606
Underrated post, dat kill ratio
>>29366084
Yes, I'm sure everyone suddenly forgot about the dogfights of the Great War and only designed bomber-killers.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do highly doubt your thesis.
>>29365982
And without the spitfire the hurricane would have been molested to death by 109s. Hurricane fags always leave out that their fighter was relegated to killing bombers while spitfires defended them.
>>29361815
Yes cause their battered military reduced to Mongolian conscripts practically with disintegraded supply lines would be able to match the full force of the US military (including nuclear weapons) Britain and all the captured Axis soldiers that could most probably be turned against the soviets.
>>29366112
Most modern media lists them as fighters because that is what they mostly ended up doing. Original documentation for example air ministry papers would list them as interceptors. Part of this was admittedly a ruse. Post WWI no one wanted to fund purposely offensive weaponry. Bombers were deterrent forces or in the case of the USAAC 'anti-shipping asset' where the norden bombsite was actually supposed to be used to hit ships (a role that in practice it fucking sucked at). Fighters were designed with defense in mind and so called interceptors. The P-38, P-47, P-40, Spitfire and 109 all began life as interceptors.
>>29366142
And the ironic thing is from memory the P-51 started life as a low altitude ground attack aircraft
>correct me if my memory is shit
>>29362633
>A Yak-3 has a notable advantage over P-51 at lower altitudes.
Against P-51 running on 100/130 fuel it doesn't.
Introduced in April 1944, but still, it was the first real jet engine fighter.
>>29361414
I remember reading about US post-war testing comparing aircraft performance, and they found that it was basically a tie between the F6F, the F4U, and the FW-190. That's just pure performance though.
The P-51 had good range, but note that it wasn't that much better than the F6F. Navy planes always had pretty long range compared to air force planes, and what was considered amazing in the P-51 wasn't that big an improvement on navy planes.
Don't get me wrong, the P-51 was a great plane. I wouldn't declare it definitively the best though.
>>29366157
The Mustang Mk.I/Ia in RAF service suffered a fate similar to that of the Typhoon where it's lack of altitude performance quickly meant it was relegated to army cooperation, low level recon and low level interception roles. It's range meant that it was very well suited to long range rubarb. It wad however always designed to be a fighter, just that it began life with a subpar engine.
>>29362973
So you're assuming that in a full front scale war, let's say (east/west germany as the initial front) a b-29, escorted by P-51's is going to make it all the way to moscow, ignoring any form of defence, and then nuke it? Now, that's retarded.
Probably just wait a year or two for Von Braun to make them a V-3 and then launch it with an attached warhead. Boom.
>>29366179
The difference being that the F-6F was slow as shit 380mph in 1944, when contemporaries were hitting 440. This isn't really noticed because Japanese planes, with their shitbad engines were even slower.
>>29366057
Do you have any Idea that it was exactly the same with the US and UK? Do you have any Idea that for the next couple of months the US fought Japan?
> B-b-but the US would surely win
>>29366186
B-29s could fly higher than their flak could accurately fire, especially with their lack of radar dorected gunnery. They also flew higher than I beleive any Russian fighter could fly.
>>29366077
You're somehow assuming they don't have the manpower. In the tactics of human wave assaults, yeah, they would probably be able to push them out of Germany relatively quickly. At the end of the day it's a numbers game.
who /BattleofBritain/ champs here
>>29366179
>between the F6F, the F4U, and the FW-190.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
>>29366196
the gruman could climb a hell of a lot fast then the p51
>>29365560
More like cuck yeager seeing how he didnt have more than 300 kills
>>29366238
>seeing as he didn't lie about his kills
Ftfy
>>29366238
>This mad nazi
Have any of you actually worked on or flown in a p51 or a bearcat or a t6?
>>29366186
USSR night Air Defence capabilities were minuscule. Moscow is big enough to be picked by radar with ease.
Also later in Korea even during day soviet piston engined fighters demonstrated very weak capabilities against B-29.
>>29366252
>talking shit
Didnt know vadniks were allowed here
>>29366264
I'm the guy who was going on about interceptors
I worked with the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight as an engineer.
>>29366238
>thinking taking potshots at vatniks with handpainted gunsights counts as real kills
>mfw
look at all those aryan flags shot down by an untermensch
>>29366264
>>29366276
I should add that they don't have any of the aircraft you have mentioned but I did work on Spitfires, Hurricanes, a Lancaster, a pair of chipmunls and a C-47
>>29366276
What birds were you an engineer on
>>29366287
Spitfires are very nice, never personally worked on one however, know a couple people who have.
>>29366279
Did the cuck US troops have to remove that "offensive symbol" from their planes after the war ended?
>>29366279
>i decide who does and does not count as a kill
How convinient :^)
Voting for 109
>served on every european theater from 39 to 45
>always a potent enemy whenever encountered
>>29366291
The spitfires and the chipmunls mostly.
>>29366308
Stat padding against russians < western front pilots
He should officially have 7 kills, because "MUH UNTERMENSCH" shouldnt count as kills since they're not human
:^)
ZE VERY BEST IN GERMAN ENGINEERING
>>29366347
So noone got any kills in the pacific? Breddy bad 2bh
>>29366362
I dont recall americans calling japs untermensch
Americans shooting down russians would count, but not for germans since russians dont qualify as humans to Germans
Might aswell go strafe some cows and horses and rack up those kills Hans :^)
>>29366373
>since Russians dont qualify as humans
Subhumans
They're still human, just a shit-tier human.
The same way righteous Goyim are okay by God but they're never be true Jews.
>see what I did there
>>29366373
donr be ridiculous! cows and horses are tiger tanks just like shermans are panthers according to typhoon pilots
>>29366381
Since theyre subhuman they shouldnt count as a full kill, Hartmann shot down 3/5ths of 300 so something like 80 Russians
>see what i did there
no, i dont fuck around with /pol/ and jews senpai
>>29366395
Well that's all well and good but there's clear evidence of Germanic blood within the Slav, through viking conquest etc. so I'd be willing to bet that most of their pilots had Germanic blood in them (as only Germans would have the mental capacity for such things).
So we'll call it an even 4/5th of a kill for Slav pilots.
>>29366403
What about based finns?
>>29366403
I mean if youre willing to say cyka blyaats have aryan blood
But 3/5ths is the lowest i can go
>>29361365
Objectively speaking, yes, it performed its job really well. Which is very long range high altitude bomber escort when climb rate didn't really matter. In that respect it did really well. As an interceptor though, ten kinds of hell no.
That's like saying a Ferrari is the best car because it can get a good lap time at silverstone. It's good at what it does. But as a commuter vehicle it's not good.
Best interceptors? Probably either a Griffon spitfire, or D series 190. Maybe a later Lavochkin. Best dogfighter? Merlin spitfire, BF-109, or Yakovlev (provided it's not gone three sorties without an engine overhaul)
That's not even touching on the pacific. Over there it's either the N1K2, or F8F.
Don't just make a vague, unspecified statement without backing it up.
>>29366426
Fine, but only if you admit that
>Chuck Yaeger
>Jaeger
Was in fact a Teutonic ubermensche himself.
You are all so cute
>>29366447
lel gib hand pls
>>29366459
>look at me posting planes that didnt see service
>>29366474
It would of
>>29366445
To clarify on dogfighter. I'm thinking of low altitude performance. In which the later 109's arent really set up for. But their power-to-weight ratio would make them a reasonable contender. Throw a later zero/KI-43 into the mix there as well.
>>29361365
The only cool thing about the p51 is its meridith effect heat sink ramjet thing on the bottom.
>>29366759
You mean the thing that makes it look like a pregnant cow and makes it twice as ugly?
>>29361549
That's a big plane
>>29364901
Fly at 8000 meters
FW-190A delivers less than 1000 horsepower at that altitude.
Rate of climb drops to under 6 m/s.
Top speed is under 600 km/h
get turkey shot by P-51's.
>>29361406
there is a lot of room for argument, it filled its role well no doubt, it was a good long range escort fighter, but several fighters were its match in dogfights. late model spits and tempests whould have taken them easily, the FW190 and p47 also, and the typhoon would have had a very good shot if the mustang ever came down to scrap.
not saying the mustang wasnt a good plane or didnt do its job very well, just that its job wasnt the only fighter role, and other fighters managed those roles better
>>29366812
4U
>>29366235
It actually couldn't, P-51 climbed slightly better than F6F, but more importantly it could maintain that climb higher.
>>29366445
Interceptors don't need high rates of climb if your have good early warning system m9.
If you see the enemy coming 30 minutes before, you can be up in the air above him. With the Mustang, you can stay in the air for hours and have options. Whereas spitfire and 109 are limited to intercept then land.
>>29365151
>>29365151
turret fighter, experimental concept produced in small numbers, had early successes as it was mistaken for a hurricane and german pilots tended to approach from the rear and be shot down by the turret while still approaching and lining up their shot.
got murdered once german pilots started to recognise them, but found a niche as a night fighter in the early blitz
>>29365346
if by shit on you mean beat them consistently then yeah
>>29366883
>every fight is above 8km
Ok
>>29366174
actually entered squadron service after the meteor although its first flight was sooner
meteor was held in reserve as it was feared that if one was shot down it might give the germans a leg up on jet technology
>>29366970
It is if you want to get at the B-17's currently turning your country into rubble
>>29366883
Fly at 8000 meters
Bombers you're meant to be protecting flying at half that
Germans ignore you and destroy your bombers
Congratulations on not doing your fucking job
>>29367005
>muh red tails
>>29367040
Did the Germans actually fly past the 51s to b8 them away?
>>29367062
Among many things. You don't want to fight escorts when carrying gunpods/air2air rockets. Neither do you want to fight escorts in heavy fighters.
>>29367005
wat?
The usual operating altitude for B-17 is 25-30,000 feet. Which is 8000-9000 meters up.
There's a reason that the Germans sent the 109's at the escorts, because they could kind of keep up with the P-51's at that altitude, while 190's were only good for going after bombers with their reduced performance.
That's one of the reasons they developed the 190 D series.
>>29366491
But it didnt.
>>29367062
Red tails is shit in every possible way.
Doolittle proved that having the fighters stick with bombers is retarded.
The fighters go AHEAD of the bombers, and kill the germans before they can get to the bombers.
Doing what red-tails does gets the bombers killed, if the bombers can even see the enemy fighters, your own fighter escorts have fucked up.
>>29366265
I'm not arguing it isn't a relatively easy target if you're within range. But if you're flying out of germany and trying to nuke moscow is the distance. While it is true that soviet air was kinda shit, it's still a huge gamble and as valuable as nukes were, it would be probable they would have gone with tactical nuking instead, so as to clear a path for Russia herself. However, there simply wasn't enough forces for the allies to successfully mount a full scale invasion similar to that of Barbarossa.
>>29367159
It was ready to go, with trained pilots, ready aircraft, and formed squadrons.
The US just felt no need to complicate their logistics by introducing another type of plane to a force that is 6000 miles away from CONUS.
There was also no need for the F7F in theater, since the F6F and F4U were already buttfucking the Japanese hard enough.
It was more ready in 1945 than a lot of planes that did see service.
>>29367171
No the doctrine said to go straight for Moscow.
The US was confident that it could make a deep penetration into the Soviet Union. The high altitude air defenses for the Soviets were basically non existent. The best they had were lend-lease P-47's. Once the US stopped supplying parts and high octane gas, those P-47's would be out of action quickly.
>>29361365
You doon goofd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09l3Y8HI__4
>>29367144
DId P-51s only escort B-17s?
Did no other bombers fly lower than 8000m?
>>29367160
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jlp2P9iO2I
>dat 0 G, 360 no scope
>>29367258
most of the british heavies flew lower, but at night and without escort
>>29367258
What other bombers? The USAF 8th airforce made the call that they were only going to fly P-51, B-17, and B-24.
Once the P-51's arrived, high altitude flying was much safer, and bombing raids were high altitude by default.
The USAF medium bombers, the Mitchell and Marauders, were not used for deep penetration raids. Part of the reason was that they sent a squadron after a target in Belgium at low altitude and all of them got shot down.
By the time the B-26 started being used en masse, the Luftwaffe had already been shattered and interception wasn't that big of a worry.
>>29367366
>and bombing raids were high altitude by default.
Didn't they have a 1% success rate?
STRAYA REPORTIN
>>29367502
They got bright down sometimes because of clouds
but seriously though, fastest piston driven aircraft
>>29366305
naa you're thinking of germany bro
>>29367773
>fastest piston driven aircraft
"no"
>>29367257
He said fighter, not autistic piece of shit.
>>29367791
sea fury top speed 460
Arrow top speed 475
"yes"
If we're going to post a bunch of shitty prototypes with questionable effectiveness could we at least post ones that aren't ugly as shit?
>>29367824
>proceeds to post the most potato-styled fighter of the war
lol, faggot
>>29367824
>implying
>>29367773
>10 tons takeoff weight
>Armament topped by a single-engine fighter
>Shitty cockpit
>Overheating issues with the rear engine
With the Me 262 and Ta 152 entering service there was no point in it.
>>29367824
>pic not related
>>29367833
>potato styled
>elevator on the front as the Wright brothers intended
>>29367791
>>29367807
The fastest piston driven aircraft is "rare bear", an F8F bearcat
>>29367833
>>29367835
>>29367839
Kill yourselves
>>29366237
yeah, this is the right answer
>>29367502
The statistic is 1% of bombs hit or hit near their intended target.
Which is why they brought thousands of bombers, so even 1% of 2000 tons is enough to damage the target sufficiently.
>>29367870
>this anal anguished weeb
>>29367870
>not even an XP-55
is it better because it was folded over a thousand times?
>>29367902
>weeb
>implying the J7W doesn't objectively look better than the Do "flying garbage can" 335
>>29367807
> Top speed 490
> on one engine
> that produces 3500 horsepower
Never produced due to lack of "battle need"
>>29367919
Category 5 chimpout in progress
>>29367928
>>29367919
Engine didnt work like most liquid cooled radials.
>>29366445
Best dogfighter at low altitude was a Tempest, manoevered comfortably with a 190, was as fast as a 51, better firepower than both.
>>29367933
He's right though, krautshit is by far the ugliest.
>>29367870
>J7W doesn't objectively look better
From behind maybe, from the front/side it looks like a complete and utter potato
>>29367954
Your planefu belongs in a garbage can.
>>29367919
>look guys, this piece of shit with corn in it is much better looking than the piece of shit with nuts in it
>>29367953
>Weebs in charge of good looking planes
>>29367967
>he isn't a coprophile
>he doesn't know shit with corn in it tastes better than shit with nuts in it
>>29367953
>Ju288 or any jumo222 aircraft ugly
M8
>>29367971
>>Weebs in charge of good planes
fixed
>>29367971
>cherrypicking
>>29367990
>cherrypicking
>just posted the BV 141
If you're going to accuse people of shit you're doing at least wait a few more posts
>>29367981
>krautaboos will defend this monstrosity
>>29367984
>ki84
>ki46
>n1k
>a6m2
Whats wrong with those?
>>29368019
I sure will
>>29367990
well at least the nips were consistent and made their main fighter as flammable as their cities
>>29368036
TOP. FUCKING. KEK.
>>29368014
But it doesn't matter what krautshit I post because its all horribly ugly.
Americool bombers look less ugly than krautshit fighters.
>>29368052
Breddy rood
>>29368019
>111
>best looking medium bomber of the war
pick two
>>29367953
nigga plz
>>29368064
does it get ESPN?
>>29368052
>But it doesn't matter what krautshit I post because its all horribly ugly.
>imploxing
>>29368089
Only at night
>>29366226
>unironically thinking Russians used human wave tactics and were effective.
I am going to dismiss your opinion outright sir.
>>29361549
>>29361606
mah niggas
>>29368201
>"Altogether over 135,000 Leningraders, factory workers as well as professors, had volunteered, or been forced to volunteer. They had no training, no medical assistance, no uniforms, no transport and no supply system. More than half lacked rifles, and yet they were still ordered into counter-attacks against panzer divisions. Most fled in terror of the tanks, against which they had no defence at all. This massive loss of life–perhaps some 70,000–was tragically futile, and it is far from certain that their sacrifice even delayed the Germans at all on the line of the River Luga."
>>29368036
this
Japanese planes were only good because they overlooked every possible safety feature for speed and maneuverability
also focused on quality over quantity for pilots, which fucked them over in the end
>>29365330
No P-80*
*Yes I know it was two YP-80's and they were not in official service yet
>>29368412
>and were effective
Oh look, someone can't read. But you're very good at copy and pasting, so you've still got that I suppose.
>>29368578
>implying it wasn't obviously a denial of only the first part of your sentence
dont get mad brah
>>29368023
>N1K
>looking good
pick one
Ki-84 or bust fags.
Anyway enjoy axis shitters
>>29368679
>Posted as my engine catches fire
>>29368824
I dont belive the N1K was much better off.
>>29369003
I don't give a fuck, I'm not a weeb.
>>29369003
Most of the fire problems got ironed out though unlike the he177 for example which simply didnt have time for it
>>29364860
>best fighter
>posts aircraft that, although amazing, is 100% not a fighter and would be ill advised getting into a dog fight with a dedicated fighter
>>29368591
>I only dealt with your sentence in such I way that I completely missed the point and wouldn't have to admit that I'm talking shit
Ok then.
>>29369023
Except im not a weeb, I prefer american planes over them all. But I cant like other nations aircraft
>>29369104
Yeah I know they got better latter on.
>>29369412
![me410-9_zps629a7069[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kwGYVYe.jpg "me410-9_zps629a7069[1].jpg")
>>29369412
I didn't insinuate you were a weeb, but I thought you accused me of being one.
Whatever, have a 410. It sucked but is the sexiest heavy for me.
>>29369476
My bad, also 410 is dank, had some fucking nasty anti-bomber armarment
>>29369488
>Can mount up to eight MG 151
>Two MK 103 and a BK5
>A six-shot rocket revolver
>Capable of dive bombing
Wonder why they didn't use it instead of the Hs 129 desu
>>29369518
Me210 happened before it
