WWII planes
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What's your guys' favorite plane from WWII? Mine is the p-38 lightning
>>29368845
It's a good thing you said that because any other answer would have been objectively wrong.
>>29368845
Yeah, that's my favorite too.
I wonder how hard a modern turboprop bomber with the best laminar flow wings would dominate in ww2.
A 700 km/h cruise at 8500 meters alt would be enough to make it invincible, even against possible me 262s unless the nazis know the exact flight route and time of take off.
Just cruising high dropping bombs
>>29368845
>>29369013
excellent taste /k/omrades.
>>29369013
>4x30mm vaporizes you
>>29371007
Please post this pic on stormfront
>>29371072
i dont want to start a war
thats a tough choice,
>>29371094
It will bring new meaning to the word, "triggered"
>>29370839
Even the B-36 would have completely fucked anyone. The generation of bombers developed right at the end of WW2 flew too high for any reasonable chance of interception by most enemy fighters.
>>29369013
>>29368845
I saw a P-38 flying with an F-35 over Tucson around March 4th. It was neat.
>>29371142
>you do it
>post results
>>29371267
When the Israeli Air For was created it was mostly old German fighters and Spitfires
>>29371283
Dint forget the czech deathtraps made from mating bomber engines to bf-109 frames
>No love for the Black Widow.
I thought you guys had taste.
>>29371388
Is this one of those planes that everyone forgets about?
>>29371388
f l y i n g t a n k
gotta say, my favorite is the Aveger.
>>29368845
Double Double Wasps coming through.
>>29371388
>>29371415
its spooky
>>29371462
hi brother
>>29371463
>black plane
>named spook
>my sides
>>29371534
Bonus: it was a night fighter with radar
>moving sneeki breeki to hanz and pop him with api-t
>>29371415
Basically. It's because it came into service so late and didn't see much widespread use. Also, there's none currently left flying so it doesn't constantly cement itself in the public eye like the more popular fighters and bombers.
I'm stoked for the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum in PA to finish restoring theirs though, whenever that will actually happen.
>>29371462
YES. Dat thin fuselage, next to those huge engines. So sleek, so pretty. Hnnngg.
Also, P-47s sound like absolute sex.
>>29371388
That ultra sleek 4×.50 dorsal turret.
>>29371463
Something tells me this thing wasn't preserved after the war
Still the best
>>29369013
This
>>29375461
So much dakka...
This, or a P-47 probably.
I think the Moonbat is the prettiest
>>29371250
>B-36
Service ceiling: 12.160m
>Focke-Wulf Ta 152
Service ceiling: 15.100m
>Tachikawa Ki-94
Service ceiling: 14,680 m
>>29375645
>service ceiling is effective interception range.
>>29375645
He's probably referring more to time to intercept, you're looking at the very best at about 10 minute climb time, plus scramble time, meanwhile the bombers have traveled at least 50 mile with the sort of cruise a b-36 was supposed to be capable of.
>>29369013
>your favourite thing is wrong
sorry, I thought I was on /k/, not /mu/
>>29368845
Really like the P-38 and the de Havilland Mosquito, probably one of the lesser known and quite impressive was the 'Whispering Death' Beaufighter.
>>29375670
Only that the B-36 wasn't much better than the B-17 for example in that regard.
>All this yankee piggu
>>29376064
>wasn't much better
20% faster cruise and a 20% higher service ceiling is much better
>>29376091
Not that the next-generation high-altitude fighters like the Ta-152 improved at a faster pace.
Even Japan who suffered from the fact that they sucked at making aircraft engines were capable of designing high-altitude optimized engines at the end of the war.
No mention of Aircobra?
It might not have been the best plane but it looks good.
>>29371103
This
Not a tough choice at all. Just ask ze Germans...
>>29371103
>thats a tough choice,
mfw Tsetse version armed with a 6 pounder gun. In a wooden airframe. WOODEN ffs...
this plane and it's not at all disgusting structure
>>29376651
Wood is much stronger than you think.
Good quality balsa is easily stronger than most metal alloys. (weight/strength ratio)
The problem with balsa is that quality is extremely inconsistent which drives up cost and balsa farms don't have the same "output" (can't find the correct English word) as mines.
The best balsa is great, but it's very expensive. Much more expensive than practically any alloy.
>>29376126
They were mildly improved, much like the bombers, the TA-152 was less than 10% faster than the P-51 and that's a 4-5 year difference in design philosophy.
>>29377065
You should maybe check some performance charts.
The P-51D couldn't compete with the Ta 152 over 10 thousand meters.
The Ta 152 H was specific designed to operate as effective interceptor for future American heavy bombers until 20 thousand meters.
>>29377065
Speed isn't the only metric and the P-51 happened to be one of the few planes which had a laminar flow airfoil.
The airfoil really contributed towards the speed, the clean airframe too.
When they started building Griffon Spitfires with laminar flow wings (now Supermarine Spiteful) their top speed increased significantly.
Much faster than the P-51 deployed in ww2.
Discovery of the laminar flow wings wasn't much of a design philosophy. More a happy coincidence.
>>29377441
>20 thousand
Please be a typo.
>>29375645
>B-36
The data are for the J model. The latest version of the B-36 built in the 50s - specific for high-altitude missions.
>>29377441
That's probably because the 51 was employed to escort bombers at 25k'
What about the TA-152's super high altitude performance helps it intercept bombers? For 90% of the climb it performs slightly better than fighters designed at the outset of the war using engines designed in the mid 30's.
>>29377466
I was referring more to the fact that it was using an engine of significant vintage because the US didn't feel it needed more power to do the job it was already doing.
>>29377490
>What about the TA-152's super high altitude performance helps it intercept bombers?
Because you want to attack bombers from a higher position to get so much energy as possible.
>>29377516
First you have to be able to climb in enough time to intercept them.
>>29377490
> because the US didn't feel it needed more power to do the job it was already doing.
That's so not USA.
They just weren't very good at making non-radial pistons.
A P-51 with one of the later DBs or a Griffon would have been easily the best plane of ww2 but they just had to fuck it up.
Still a great escort fighter, not the best fighter during the war.
But a P-51 with a griffon did exist.
The Red Baron it was called and it went 800 km/h. Only a few years after ww2 during the 70s.
Could have gone faster depending on weather conditions.
>>29377516
Problem with that is that you don't always know when the bombers are coming and which route they'll take so you can't prepare by climbing to whatever alt and hope they just appear below you.
Most of the time you had to scramble when the alarms ringed and you didn't have much time to climb.
>>29377550
Good that the Ta 152H had one of the most stunning rate of climb between 20 to 25m/s.
So it was capable of getting at over 10.000 meters in 13 minutes.
>>29377550
There was an alternate prototype that used the Griffon also.
The Packard solution to the Mustang was 100% USA, it did the job, they were already making it by the million so they cbf changing it seeing as the Stang was never short of speed and it's range was excellent.
Same story with the Sherman, they probably could have dropped a better tank into the war but the drive wasn't there because it did ok.
>>29377567
13+ scramble, say a couple of minutes at absolute best and the 36's have already moved ~60 mile
>>29377586
>13+ scramble, say a couple of minutes at absolute best and the 36's have already moved ~60 mile
If your scenario is based on the fact that the bombers are basically already over their targets then you don't need the B-36 for that.
>>29374538
Well if you say so.
![Brewster_Model_239_(BW-372)_top[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tndDwHL.jpg "Brewster_Model_239_(BW-372)_top[1].jpg")
chubby
If I actually had to own one, propably one of these or maybe a Fiesler Fi-156.
>>29375630
>Moon
I love early X-planes.
FW189 Uhu
I really like the look of this plane.
>>29377620
Funny how the Finnish pilots were able to get more out of the American airfraft than the Americans just with the instruction not to fire at the theoretical max range.
>>29377644
*Moonbat
>>29368845
What about your favorite rivalry?
The TIE fighter of the east vs the X-Wing of the west.
One of the most underappreciated planes.
>>29377466
The effects of laminar are somewhat exaggerated for WWII birds: in practice many had dirty airfoils due to the pace of wartime manufacturing and any tiny disturbance, from flaking paint to a mis-seated rivet to a seam line or other such perturbation, easily breaks the laminar flow boundary. Meaning the P51 was mostly flying on AOA over a largely symmetrical wing with otherwise normal properties. The fact that the thing is a powerhouse and did achieve some laminar flow qualities and was otherwise an aerodynamically well-thought-out design were all contributing factors. But from aerodynamicists I know, they have said many times that the laminar flow potential in the field was limited at best during the actual war.
>>29377714
I should also note that while North American didn't reach the perfection needed to actually reach laminar flow (even a scratch in the paint will cause wakes that disrupt the flow) they were still leagues above anything Germany or Japan was putting out in their attempt to reach it, something no-one else was even close to (estimates are Luftwaffe airfoils were typically about half as effective as the ideal due to mfg limitations) which did mean super low drag wing that performed above the rest.
>>29377837
That's not true though.
Based on the research in the 90s the average cw value of the Mustang was 0,0072 while the Fw 190 was at 0,0089.
The differences aren't significant.
>>29377837
> they were still leagues above anything Germany or Japan was putting out in their attempt to reach it
The Germans didn't make any attempts of archiving laminar flow, which wasn't possible in war conditions anyway.
They went with swept wings.
quack
>>29377917
>They went with swept wings.
German swept wing research never reached production by war's end. The two most commonly cited examples of "swept wing for high speed flight" - the Me 262 and Me 163 - used swept wings to provide a favorable center of pressure. In the Me 262's case, the sweep wasn't enough to provide any benefit in high speed flight.
>>29377917
>They went with swept wings.
The Me 262 had swept wings because of the centre of weight because of the engines.
Either way, the angle was too small to matter.
>>29378092
>German swept wing research never reached production by war's end.
So the German resarch was so effective as the not-so laminar flow research by the USA.
>>29377888
Are they looking at actual samples painted and maintained during the war or were the samples restored by the 90's? I would be surprised if a well-made 190 wing was worse than a Mustang because Tank wasn't fucking around.
Also I think the main comparisons I saw were to the 109 which is like comparing an F-22 to a Sopwith Camel.
>your fighter is huge!
>that means it has huge guts!
>>29377888
Did you add a zero extra by accident?
>>29378242
> I would be surprised if a well-made 190 wing was worse than a Mustang
I wouldn't, the Mustang had significantly worse power to weight but was quicker at all altitudes.
>>29377888
A 30% difference seems significant imo
Äaminar flow concept is a double edged sword. If it works it will reduce the drag significantly but also reduce lower lift - espencially at higher G loads.
A Laminar flow wing will also stall earlier and more violently than a conventional wing.
>>29378500
> more violently than a conventional wing.
Depends on how it's designed.
Not necesarily true
>>29368845
The only correct answer. This thing was fucking revolutionary. I wish I could have the honor of flying one....
But seriously. It's a shame it never entered mass production. We got jets instead.
A-26B
8 50's of love
>>29377677
>>29371259
>>29371005
>>29368845
>>29369013
>>29370047
>>29375495
I've never experienced so much excellent taste in my life.
This baby.
![B-17_01[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bqFrcnE.jpg "B-17_01[1].jpg")
>>29368845
My grandfather worked for boeing installing guns on the first models of B-17's, and later in the war was a gunner on one.
He'd tell my brother and I stories about flying in it. It'll always be my favorite plane.
