Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,748
San Antonio, Tx
QUOTE="Deano, post: 3215970, member: 58607"]
If we look at performance based planes like p51's, instead of proven palmares, then a TA 152 should be mentioned too.
[/QUOTE]

What is a “palmares”?
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,900
Stockport Cheshire UK
If we look at performance based planes like p51's, instead of proven palmares, then a TA 152 should be mentioned too.
The TA 152 is credited with 7 victories and 4 losses in the highly limited combat it saw in the last months of the conflict, therefore while the stats look good on paper there is not enough evidence to make a valid judgement of its real worth.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2019
135
Netherlands
QUOTE="Deano, post: 3215970, member: 58607"]
If we look at performance based planes like p51's, instead of proven palmares, then a TA 152 should be mentioned too.
What is a “palmares”?
[/QUOTE]

Wins or achievements, but probably this word isn't known in english.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,330
Yes, bf-109 was a difficut plane to land... because the high speed was necessary to land and because the possition of the landing gear
Almost. The landing gear is criticsed and always was, from the moment the design was offered, but it had the advantage of allowing wing replacement with ease and transferring shock loads toward the fuselage rather than completely on the wing spar. This was used as part of the nasty and ongoing arguments between supporters of Messerschmitt and Heinkel prior to service adoption. Udet sorted that one, but because of the flying qualities, not the technical aspects.

High speed is undesirable when landing because it generates excessive lift for a slow descent onto the runway, usually resulting in 'floating' along the runway under ground effect. I got told off regularly by flying instructors early on for too high an approach speed - and then only a matter of 5 or 10 kts. It wasn't necessary for the 109 (the Finns proved it and I've seen modern 109 flying videos that show similar techniques) to be arrive fast - but bear in mind the Germans preferred a longer landing run and were less keen on lower sped approach. The issues revolve more about the lack of visibility - 109's, like all taildraggers, lose forward vis during the flare and the heavy canopy framing doesn't help. This resulted all too often in a higher sink rate than the aeroplane was built for and therefore the bumslandung "heavy landing" which claimed as many airframes written off as combat losses.
 

Attachments