The greatest fighter of WW2 was Audie Murphy.

>>65204969
Kill yourself, faggot.

File: Hawker_Tempest_V_in_flight_Nov_1944.jpg (180.8 KB)

It was good for what it was, by 1942 it was obsolete.
The specific time interval 1938—1943, about five years, was an incredible one for advancements in aviation structures, powerplants, engineering design and technology overall. Neck-snappingly fast progression of everything

>>65204968
No the P-47 was.

>>65205019
retard

>>65204968
the Battle Of Britain was both its finest hour and its swan song
although the IIC was pretty fuckin cool in the non-European theatres

File: WEEEEE.png (263.5 KB)

Hurricats are cool

>>65204997
Not just aviation. A tank that would rule the battlefield in 1938 was a deathtrap in '43.

File: 342-FH_000288.jpg (1.9 MB)

The Bf/Me-109 has a decent claim for longevity, but at the same time the late model 109s had different engines, wings, tails, armament so at some point you have to ask whether it can even be considered the same aircraft. Otherwise I think I'd go with >>65205019
pic unrelated

>>65204968
Anyone who starts a thread with the words "now that the dust has settled" is a faggot plebbitor and should fuck off back there.

>>65205336
>FEED ME OSCARS

>>65204978
>t. Seething 6'0" (basically a manlet)

>>65204968
Yes. Everyone who played Secret Weapons Over Normandy knew this 20 years ago.

>>65204968
No. On account of not having a radial engine.

File: Douglas_C-54_Skymaster_USAF.jpg (581.9 KB)

>>65205329
I get what you're saying but not in direct analogous proportion, magnitude or parallel. Aviation technology advancement was a vast, broad and exceedingly rapid one and had direct spinoffs into and purposes/application for non-military aircraft. Tank warfare was relatively a new concept in itself and in the 1920s/30s nobody really knew what to do with it (doctrinally in particular, which drove the kind of tanks that'd even be designed/built) or where it was going to go, overall. Also the technology (apart from scaling-up of designs and general improvements, size-power increases of automotive powerplants, armament, armor thickness etc.) itself didn't really change that much. In aviation you had all-stressed-skin airframes, turbojet engines, perspex transparencies, pressurized cabins just to name a few.

>>65206038
>radial engine
P-51 Mustang, in its later B-C-D variant considered one of the best all round fighters of the war, had a modified upgraded version of Hurricane's engine. The best piston engine single seat fighter of the entire war, P-38 Lightning, had twin liquid cooled engines. The Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Germany's best piston engine fighter, had both radial and liquid cooled powerplants<--latter incarnation of which was considered the finest variant(s) of that airplane.

>>65204968
no

>>65206279
Yes, but have you considered that radials sound cooler?

File: EL-2003-00318.jpg (228.9 KB)

>>65206365
They're nice. Idk if they 'sound cooler' listen to a P-38 and its twin turbosupercharged Allisons sometime. Radials tend to have this large scale, resonant booming drone overpressure sound.

>>65204968
Contrarians keep mistaking its numerical superiority in the early war for it being mechanically superior.

>>65207094
>Video gamers keep mistaking its numerical superiority in the early war [...]
ftfy

>>65205336
At least the 109 still had the same size and shape and engine from 1939 to 1945. The engine just went through many upgrades including two name changes. Arguably late war Spitfire was slightly more different to early war Spitfire than late 109 to early 109. A third contender could be the Yak.

>>65207138
>109
>Spitfire
>'arguably'
>'at least' (wrong, the G/K 109s were different size shape and engine)
Nah, same criteria applies to both late-versions. Overpowered, engine that was never intended for them, stayed too long at the party, a Spit / 109 too far, same mid-1930s design narrow-track outward retracting main landing gear, for both.

>>65207142
Griffon Spitfires with a whole new engine and lengthened fuselages and noses are far more different to early war Spits than 109K to 109E

>>65207156
>fuselages
PR and multiple other pre-Griffon subvariant earlier Spitfires have several different enlarged wing, empennage and fuselage shapes

>109
DB 605 defines the larger heavier different size, shape G/K
18 years is the minimum age to post this website.

I had an AI chat of possible upgrades to the Hurricane MKIIc to make it a viable late war front line fighter. It had some interesting thoughts.

1) 20% reduction in wing thickness, wingspan reduced from 40ft to 38ft. Big effect on top speed, climb rate, roll rate and range due to less drag.

2) Merlin 66 1700hp 2 stage supercharger engine. Available late 1942.

3) Length increased to 33ft to accommodate more fuel in fuselage tanks due to reduction in wing size tanks and larger engine.

It estimated a top speed of around 402mph at 20k feet and a 4200ft+ climb rate. Comparable with the Spitfire VIII and IX, but the Hurricane had more fuel, better armed, tighter turn rate, easier to manufacture and maintain.

Would be better all rounder than the Typhoon due to 2 stage supercharger not limited its effectiveness at high altitude and not killing the pilot due to carbon monoixde posioning, Napier engine issues and tail randomly breaking off.

>>65209728
>I had an AI chat
No one cares that you did. No one cares about the text an LLM produces given any prompt on any topic. Your post is embarassing and you are an embarassment. You should be ashamed, but I think that if you were capable of experiencing that emotion then we wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the point where someone needed to write this post for you. Just fucking stop being worthless and lazy.

>>65209728
>I had an AI chat
I don't care for the opinion of browns

>>65204968
that's not the aircobra

File: 1738226038864569.gif (1.7 MB)

>>65209728
>had an AI chat
Why do niggers act like chat prompts are consulting some personal expert?

>>65210100
They mistake google aggregates for expert learned opinions. I like asking Gemini for parts recommendations for hobby stuff as it does do a good job with basic numbers and figuring out what can be used on particular items but I wouldn't ask it to do anything it can't find online.

>>65210100
Because compared to them it IS an expert. Although that doesn't actually mean anything useful, I could have a long and frank conversation with a Yorkshire terrier about theoretical upgrades to the Hurricane and it would be more coherent than his views

File: 1699140480709789.jpg (151.8 KB)

>>65210100
>>65210113
>>65210123
It's because they're video gamers. Video gamers are willing dupes for the use of AI as a 'tool', all they've ever had growing up is a screen to interact with and they view life as an electronic silicon matrix playground. Video gaming has destroyed western civilization.
>muh WWII planes
In addition to being screen addicted brainlets they've had Greg's (a channel for video gamers) on algofeed so they think that reading 1940s aircraft technical manuals line-4-line allows them to 'create a reality' in which they can conceive their video game hero-planes, as though a technical manual defined what actually occurred in combat and procurement military aviation history. Zero actual context or history, just a cyber 'gaming manual' that helps them whack off to illusory fantasies. It's all part of the synthetic fake retconned postmodern pseudo-reality generated from pieces of data uploaded to the internet (and now over past half decade, additionally blenderSlop-ified by AI and brainlets that want to be slaves to it). Being a video gamer is where it all starts, though.

>>65209728
Major wing change needs retooling so at that point might as well retool for Spitfires and stop wasting Merlins in that death box. And the Brits did just that

>>65210123
>>65210113
>>65210100

What exactly is the problem here? Why such anger and narky faggotry?

Nothing wrong with suggesting thinner wings (an known issue at the time and interestingly due to an misinterpretation of data by Sydney Camm, who repeated it in the Typhoon then fixed in the Tempest), and improved engine then drawing out theoretical performance stats which are likely based on real life data.

Are you disagreeing with what it said or just the fact someone likes exploring ideas with AI? Why does the mention of AI elicit such wankerish reactions in you?

>>65210617
Hurricanes were produced right up until 1944 and this is a hypothetical where the Spit dosen't exist and the RAF need to improve the Hurri.

>>65210807
>SAARS! SAARS! THE NEEDFUL SAARS!

File: XP-80A_Gray_Ghost_af.jpg (86.9 KB)

>>65204968
"Greatest fighter of WWII" needs some caveats, because otherwise the boring answer is pic rel.

The Hurricane served well but it was a 1930s biplane cut down to monoplane at the last minute and was soon obsolete. I'd say the Fw.190 was the best fighter of WWII.

File: 1776476966029380.jpg (31.3 KB)

I'd say the Spitfire was the best but it was a Ship of Theseus - the Mk1 of 1939 was completely different to the Mk 24 - Rolls-Royce Griffon engine, 450mph, 20mm Hispano cannons. The same plane in name only really. The RAF loved them so much they clung onto them into the 1950s.

File: Apustaja hämment.png (20.0 KB)

>>65204968
Did they ever make a version with fuel injection that could handle negative acceleration?

>>65211360
LMAO, No.
Even 30 years later, "respected" bong companies like Aston Martin and Rolls Royce couldn't figure out mechanical gasoline injection in the fucking 1970s.
That was despite straight up buying all the parts and technical support possible from the Germans at Porsche, Bosch, and Kügelfischer.
They tried it, failed completely, then went back to carbs while making up blatantly bullshit copes about how carbs were better than fuel injection.

>>65211360
they did in 1943 I think. First by allowing fuel overflow so the carburettor wouldnt choke and then by switching to a pressurized carburettor. Still far cry from fuel injection but good enough for total war. https://www.calum-douglas.com/article-1-rolls-royce-merlin-carburettor-development/0

>>65211436
They literally just put a washer in the fuel line to the carb to restrict fuel flow, so float needle in carb wouldn't get stuck open and flood the engine with an enormous amount of fuel and stall when pulling out of negative Gs.
It was the engineering equivalent of putting a bandaid on a bullet wound, just barely effective enough to fix the worst consequences without addressing the underlying issue.

>>65210835
wut
> By the end of 1944, 12 pre-production aircraft had been delivered to the USAAF. While two pre-production aircraft saw limited service in Italy just before the end of World War II, they never engaged in direct combat.

>>65210835
>needs British research, British blueprints and a British engine
You're welcome. Anything to help our retarded son.

>>65211384
Injection research was basically banned by the British Government in the thirties, Carbs were all they wanted so that is what they got.
Some more people to eliminate when my time machine is finished ;)

>>65211655
Yes, but it technically saw service during WWII, which is why I said caveats are needed.
>>65211668
The engine is true, but the rest isn't. Meanwhile literally everyone was using American (NACA) airfoils and aerodynamic research in general.

>>65212049
>caveats
It was a cute post, but the P-80—unlike for example the Gloster Meteor and Me 262—did not see combat service in World War II. Its debut was in Korea
And even if it did somehow make combat service 1945, neither it or the other two jets are 'greatest fighter of wwii'

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-662-6659-37,_Flugzeug_Messerschmitt_Me_109.jpg (58.4 KB)

Sorry lads,
but i'm superior
weeeeeeeeeeeeeee

File: FXIdsVfaQAEr2lg.jpg (132.4 KB)

>>65212376
Performance-wise for only a small window. Looks-wise, definitely a contender, but it's missing something...

>>65212376
109 with battle hardened pilots were peaking when the new kids were finding their feet.
History shows it didn't last long.

>>65212329
>Adds the word 'combat' to service
That's called a caveat, genius.
>neither it or the other two jets are 'greatest fighter of wwii
Name one WWII fighter better than them. You can't without adding some other caveat like 'best value' or 'most impactful'.

>>65212973
>muh service
P-80 never saw combat in World War Two. Neither did some other jets that flew before Sept 1945. (to be 'best' or 'good', actual combat service as a fighting aircraft had to have occurred. F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, de Havilland Hornet never saw WWII combat service either)
Back to plebbit, video games and Tide Pods, Brainlet. The ww2 jet fighters were obviously influential in the following decade, but far from "greatest" or best of that war. Jet engines were in infancy and far from reliable or fuel efficient.
18 years is minimum age to post on 4chan

>>65212973
>Name one WWII fighter better than them.
Lippisch P-13A

>>65204968
Front two slots are taken up by the Mustang and Spitfire, your choice on which makes #1.

>>65213385
Mustang is the best fighter
Spitfire is the best interceptor

>>65213178
>to be 'best' or 'good', actual combat service as a fighting aircraft had to have occurred
By that logic, the F-22 isn't good. You shouldn't be insulting other's intelligence when you're this dumb. You also couldn't name a better fighter. I can also guarantee you that I'm much more of an expert on this than you are.

>>65206429
>Radials tend to have this large scale, resonant booming drone overpressure sound.
The ones that made the most impression on me were on a DC-3 at SMO in SoCal, about 40 years ago. I have no idea if they were the Wright 1820s or the Pratt&Whitney 1830s. But they were just painfully sharp and loud, more intense in the high frequencies than the low. Absurd noise, a war being waged on your ears, cacaphony so strong it hurt. You can't fly those into SMO any more, you'll collect noise fines. The noise restrictions have gotten so tight even older Gulfstreams can no longer operate there.

>>65213545
>actual combat service
>F-22
They dropped some JDAMs in Syria and shot down a recon balloon over USA. Both of those are real combat service. Deal with it.

File: 1772760209914279.jpg (190.2 KB)

>>65213545
>'I can also guarantee you that I'm much more of an expert on this than you are'

>>65213569
Didn't know they've prohibited some of the old piston engines (knew they had done so to some the vintage bizjets/airliners)

>>65211341
The below plane is like double the weight, power, and payload of the top plane. Pretty crazy for 8 years of development.

>>65213800
the prohibition is by decibel

Sad, we used to have a Lockheed Jetstar come in semi-regularly but it was too loud for the faggots

File: Fw_190_A-8.jpg (527.8 KB)

Realizing how bad these things turn made me like them a lot less

>>65214582
In real life, turning circle didn't really help you much outside of retarded Americans trying to dogfight zeroes.
Roll rate, speed a turn starts, ergonomics? Far more important.
The FW190's cockpit was designed with actual input from shitloads of pilots, flying it was like flying a plane years in advance ergonomically while the Spitfire pilot's cockpit was designed by Field Marshal Haig styled people.

>>65214598
You're mostly right, but roll rate wasn't a huge deal, almost every fighter had more than sufficient roll rate. Now climb rate on the other hand, that was important.

>>65214630
If you had a faster roll rate, you could start a turn quicker, this was hugely important in WW2 dogfights which weren't turn and burn styled ones.
It's how the 190 killed so many spitfires, when the spitfire was far better at turning.

>>65214726
Basically any WWII fighter could roll enough for any turn in less than a second. Compared to the time to turn or climb, a small fraction of a second difference in roll is nothing.

>>65214753
Not at speed they couldn't lmao. The 190's push-rod system gave a fuckload easier experience with the stick than the control-wire systems of other planes.
Thing had a fucking complicated differential unit to control the tailplanes/rudder too

File: blenhem.jpg (84.6 KB)

On the topic of early war britbong aviation: what exactly is the point of a level bomber with such a pathetic payload? You put 3-4 men in a plane, give them an escort, have them line up for a bombing run where they are extremely vulnerable, all to drop... maybe 1000 lbs total?

>>65214988
checked, it's a 1930s design based on powerplant classes then available (see >>65204997)
many such cases

>>65214988
Remember at the time they were designed they were as fast or faster than most of the interceptors in service.

File: Based_Audie.jpg (132.7 KB)

>>65204968
>>65204969
>The greatest fighter of WW2 was Audie Murphy.

FRBR
Plus:

File: 1756765679091.gif (135.3 KB)

>>65214848
Yes they could, with the sole exceptions of the Zero and Typhoon.

>>65215061
That literally shows the 190 outperforming the rest

>>65215302
I never said that the 190 was bad at roll, I said that almost all of them roll fast enough that it doesn't make much difference, even at high speed.

>>65215720
The chart directly shows the 190 starting a turn twice as fast as most planes.
Which is why the spitfire got it's wings clipped in the first place.

>>65215742
>Fw190 wants to execute a 9g turn at 200 mph, it takes 0.61 seconds
>Spitfire (unclipped) wants to execute that same 9g turn, it takes 0.8 seconds
Again, I'm not arguing which planes have good or bad roll rate, I'm pointing out that the difference only results in a fraction of a second change, much less than with other performance metrics.

>>65216074
>Fw190 wants to execute a 9g turn at 200 mph, it takes 0.61 seconds
>Spitfire (unclipped) wants to execute that same 9g turn, it takes 0.8 seconds
And none the less this resulted in the deaths of so many Spitfire pilots they had to scramble to supe-up the Spitfire and clip it's wings.

>>65217495
>Given hard evidence that something wasn't the case
>Still choose to believe pop history
This board is hopeless...

File: Westland-Whirlwind-first-prototype-L6844.jpg (214.9 KB)

(OP topic is such a trainwreck it deserves to stay on the Catalog)