Fantasy pilot

[nightfighter]

Those of us much too young to have flown in WWII, what would be your aircraft of choice would you like to have flown as pure fantasy?
I would have loved to have flown either a Mosquito (non-photo recon) or a Typhoon...both British.

[Snakedriver]

P-51 or P-38, both very nice aircraft.

[Big ugly]

I have to say the Corsair.

[pmeisel]

B-25.....

[millwright]

How about the DC-3/Dakota/C-47 ? Or the DC-4 ? Both were "ground breaking aircraft" as were their crews......

OTOH, catering to your "fantasy", what theatre, when ?

I might well opt for a short or long nose FW 190. Or, possibly a ME 262.......as easily as a P-51. Then there's some excellent Russian and Italian fighters...... The 262 excepted, all of the ETO piston aircraft were of comparable performance in the fur ball. In the PTO, after mid '43, the USN aircraft predominated due to superior tactics.

After 1944 the U.S. enjoyed superior aircraft and superior tactics, plus the advantage of a lot of fresh pilots with excellent training. I like the Corsair for its looks/performance, not its known operational hazards. The GB&IW's later editions of the Wildcat and Hellcat were excellent "mixumup" fighters able to beat the Zero at its game....

IOW, not enough info or direction...... >MW

[dons2346]

I would love to fly the 120 day wonder, the P51 Mustang. I had a chance years ago to buy one for $50K. Good part is they are worth in the millions, bad part is I probably would have sold it for $51k

Next would be the Corsair, screaming death, as it was known.

Now-days, I would love to fly a B17 as my dad did.

[Eddie N]

B-17, Mosquito, Spitfire, P-38...too many to think of.

[Willie]

PBY, flying boat in the Pacific arena. Sure the glorious fighters would be fun but the PBY was a flying machine a good pilot could do a lot with.

[nightfighter]

...... The 262 excepted, all of the ETO piston aircraft were of comparable performance in the fur ball. I

Only if you are talking in terms of fighter superiority (fighter vs. Fighter), aircraft. The Germans had no comparable aircraft (could not match the speed), to the Mosquito or the Typhoon. Nor could they field a piston-powered fighter fast enough to catch them.

As for the C-47, it is said that there were somewhat difficult to fly, and the missions to which they were assigned were utilitarian (boring), compared to the combat planes. However, C-47's were used in Viet Nam, armed and dangerous, as "Puff the Magic Dragon", gun ships. Nevertheless, most C-47's in WWII were just "Flying Box Cars".

[millwright]

NF,

Re your opinion on the -3.....A lot of very experienced old pelicans would disagree.....its predecessor, the -2 was reputed for its "stiff-leggedness" on landing but the -3 and its military counterpart the C-47 was regarded as very forgiving and placid. The -47 OTOH, wasn't nearly so.....

Re "figher V fighter.....most veterans I've spoken with agree it all comes down to 'critical altitude', engine time, airframe condition and pilot skill. It wasn't unusual for two of the same make/model/mod aircraft to exhibit a 20+ mph difference in top speed. Ground crews knew this and spent many hours lovingly rerigging, primping and polishing "their bird" to get the best out of it.

The "Mossie" was a light bomber. Yes, it was very fast so successful interception depended upon having positional advantage. Any "tail chase" is a long affair unless the chaser has a major speed or altitude advantage.

The Typhoon was a ground attack aircraft optimized for low altitudes. The USAF's Robert Johnson, (21 kills) noted installing "paddle-bladed propellors and water injection to the P-47 was worth 1000 hp"......permitting him to outclimb and 'beat the daylights' out of a Spitfire X in mock combat.....Just as lots of green pilots flying the "superior" -51D counted themnselves lucky to be an uninvited guest of Germany after encountering a Luftwaffe veteran flying Me-109G or FW - 190 or - 192. Jusrt as many German Me 262 pilots fell victim to the "inferior/slower" P-51.

Point of all this is "exclusionary statements" regarding any particular aircraft's alleged "superiority/inferiority" don't hold up to analysis. In China the "inferior" P-40 Warhawk had an excellent combat record. The greatest "ace" of the PTO, Major Thomas McGuire was downed by an "inferior" Zero....... >MW

[nightfighter]

Point of all this is "exclusionary statements" regarding any particular aircraft's alleged "superiority/inferiority" don't hold up to analysis. In China the "inferior" P-40 Warhawk had an excellent combat record. The greatest "ace" of the PTO, Major Thomas McGuire was downed by an "inferior" Zero....... >MW

The P-40 Warhawk was not inferior to the Japanese fighters it encountered. Most of the P-40's victories, if I am not mistaken, were not against Zeros (Navy), but truly inferior Japanese Army fighters (and bombers). P40 had six .50 cal machine guns to the Japanese Army fighters four 7.7 mm (about .32 caliber). Watching "Dog Fights", they talked about how the Flying Tigers used the head-on attack against the poorly armed and poorly armored Japanese Army Fighters to good advantage.

[nightfighter]

The Typhoon was a ground attack aircraft optimized for low altitudes.

It was my understanding that the Typhoon was conceived as an air superiority fighter, but was found to be better at ground attack because it did not perform at high altitude.
Such was the case with several U.S. fighters. P-47 was intended as air superiority fighter also. But like the Typhoon, could not cut it at altitude. Likewise, the P-51 was supposed to be a ground attack fighter, but the Army quickly found that it was at its best at high altitude. It would appear that when it comes to aircraft, they had to find the right application.

[Suicide*Ride]

Originally Posted by Snakedriver

P-51 or P-38, both very nice aircraft.

As usual...... the low fly'n, helo pilot from the 'Nam beat me to it!

This thread should've asked "What WW-II plane wouldn't you want to fly?" (It would've been a short list! )





What a great thread!


S*R

[Old Grump]

If I could fly and had my choice it would be one of 4, preferably all 4 each for different reasons.

Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Supermarine Spitfire, or the original zero, 1937 IJN. First choice is based on my admiration of Pappy Boyington the F4U-1A from what I understood took an expert to fly but once in the air it was a battleship on wings. Well make that a destroyer but still it took a licking and kept on and on and on and on....

[Snakedriver]

Originally Posted by Suicide*Ride

As usual...... the low fly'n, helo pilot from the 'Nam beat me to it!

This thread should've asked "What WW-II plane wouldn't you want to fly?" (It would've been a short list! )

What a great thread!

S*R

I love the ones that go fast and shoot back!!!

ETA: BTW I was told that the gunsights we used in our Cobras were originally from P-51's.

[nightfighter]

"What WW-II plane wouldn't you want to fly?"

The B-26 Widow-maker!

I watched a documentary on that subject and how Doolittle made his demonstration flight doing maneuvers that the complaining pilots insisted would result in a crash.
Nevertheless, the documentary showed a demonstration on how creepy it was to land. The B-26 would stall if flown in a normal, gradual attempt at landing inasmuch as it needed a relative high air speed. The ship was shown almost in a dive until the last second, and then leveled out to land. When seeing it on TV, I thought J....C.....that had to require split second and almost perfect timing, begging the question: What would happen if the pilot was wounded or even fatigued? It is not a airplane that I would ever like to have to land.

[nightfighter]

Also in a short list of WWII aircraft that I would not like to have flown is the Liberator. According to taped interviews I have watched with WWII pilots, the Liberator could not be flown in as tight box formations as B17's because they bounced all over the place compared to B17's. And when they flew with the B17's, the pilots stated that because the B24 Liberators could not fly as tight, the German fighters would by-pass the B17's in favor of shooting at the B24's.

Also, I have heard B24 crews say that they got back to base faster than the B17's. And the B17 crews would counter with: "Yes, but the B17's get back to base more often".

[millwright]

NF,

I wouldn't place too much faith in the info in "Dogfights", myself ....

The early P-40 B's sent to China, (diverted from a lot destined for Britian) were armed with 2 .30 cal cowl mounted MGs and 4 .50 wing guns. The "E" models were armed with six wing-mounted .50's.

The AVG and later the USAAF encountered a variety of Jap aircraft. in China. Perhaps the most "modern" being the Oscar and the Hyabusa, few were "inferior" in flight performance, but all lacked sufficient armour, self-sealing tanks and heavy armament. That changed as 20mm cannon and 12/7 MGs were fitted to a lot of models.

Can't think why you wouldn't want to sit in the seat of a very good airplane - the Martin built - B-26 ! Good load, great speed and nice handling according to the old drivers I used to hang around with. Its only "fault", according to them, was in the USAAF's multi-engine training, or, rather, lack thereof.

USAAF M/E training was given in the UC-78, aka "Bamboo Bomber" or the Beech -17. Both were slow and placid "tail draggers" with low-powered engines where VMC was nearly below stall speed. Transition to the high-powered "tri-cycle" B-26 with its "zero" wing incidence angle where attitude, and airspeed ruled takekoffs and landings was a shock to most. But flown "by the numbers" it was a safe and efficient medium bomber !

Its "close cousin" the Douglas built A-26 was even better, having the best loss/mission rate of any bomber in the ETO. It was so good it persisted in the USAF inventory thru Vietnam ! A post-war designation change also has it listed as the "B-26", leading to a lot of "confusion". >MW

[Marlin]

I have flown Goonie Birds, C-54s, C-118s, C-69s and C-121s.

Would love to have the privilege of flying the Mustang and the Lightning. I have always been a big fan of both.

[millwright]

Marlin,

You would have a lot more "relevant" multi-engine experience than most of the pilots flying the -38 in WW2 !! That said, the many models/mods of the -38 held traps for the unwary persisting even today ! At least one modern and somewhat "experienced" war bird flyer killed himself in a -38 because he apparently wasn't familiar with the fuel system of the variant he was in.....

You probably would like the -51, IMO. Cosy cockpit and good visibility in the air. OTOH, taxiing, (unless you have a lot of tail-dragger time) would be an experience !! OTT, just about everything you know is applicable ! Just 'wheel it on' like most WW2 pilots we're taught... >MW