Most beautiful WWII fighter

:oI consider the Supermarine Spitfire as the most beautiful WWII fighter.

 

Viewed by many as the most iconic fighter of that war, it is one of the few aircraft to have been produced throughout the war, and it served its country (and many other countries) to well beyond the war war's duration.

:oIts lesser known sibling, the Seafire, served the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm with distinction, esp. in the Pacific theater, in the Far East and in the Med. When considering taking it to sea on carriers, Winston Churchill was against it, and some said that at sea it would be a horse of a very different color. It flew from carriers with success, however, and most FAA pilots soon learned to land it without mishaps, though accidents did happen. The Mk.III Seafire introduced folding wings at two points, to fit more aircraft in the small RN carriers and conserve precious desk space. The Seafire L.F. III was the fastest of all Merlin-engined Seafires. In 1945, it was still the fastest Allied carrier fighter. Compared to the American Hellcat, it was like comparing a race horse to a cart horse.

 

:p The Supermarine Spitfire has been the subject of many books, magazine articles, paintings, air shows, flying and static restorations, aviation museum exhibits, documentary and other films, BBC interviews with pilots, tourist and museum souvenirs that include cups, beer mugs, key-rings, watches, T-shirts, videos, small flags, metal chest pins and wings, etc...

 

:p It has been produced for all flightsims and PC games, in countless versions, as freeware and payware aircraft for FS versions and CFS versions, and many FS and Combat FS sceneries feature it as parked or as AI aircraft.

 

:p It was a pure exhilaration to fly, light and viceless on the controls, with very effective ailerons and its pilot felt part of it. On take-off it flew itself off the ground very fast and effortlessly and had a good climb rate. It proved a perfect platform for various combinations of cannon and machine guns, small bombs and even an underbelly fuel tank.

 

:mad:Against its virtues was its silly narrow undercarriage and the lack of forward visibilty due to its long nose.

 

:oI will not go into mentioning the Spitfire's contribution to the Battle of Britain and operations in Europe--most will know that information.

.

:oConsider downloading some Spitfires and Seafires to fly, if you do not have them already. Suitable carriers are available as well.

 

 

Nick,

 

Athens, Greece

I do love the Spitfire, but the P-38 Lightning first and the P-51 Mustang second for me. And the yellow-nose Bf-109 is high on the list too. Actually, it's kind of hard to pick a most beautiful since so many can be appreciated in so many different ways. The P-47 isn't a typically "pretty" airplane, but is just so cool in its huge pug-like girth and stance. Driving the A2A version with a seat shaker and in virtual reality is visceral. Some were even beautiful in their ugliness if you want to go that far and call them ugly. :pilot:

I would agree that the P-51 is very beautiful--second for me, after the Spit.

 

The P-38 I find far from beautiful. The yellow-nosed 109's you refer to must be the early Bf 109-E model, right? It is ok, though the later -G model looks nicer to me.

 

And I find the P-47 ugly--the Japanese Raiden, similar in role, is more pleasing in looks--and the Hawker Tempest very pretty.:o:)

 

;)One other aircraft often neglected is the P-39 Airacobra--I find it pretty and "cute-looking"...

 

You summed it up very well when you wrote "Actually, it's kind of hard to pick a most beautiful since so many can be appreciated in so many different ways. "

 

I chuckle when it crosses my mind that this post will have many simmers downloading WWII fighters...for the nth time:):)

Can you find my nominee in here?

 

Is it the "Jack"?

The Spitfire, Mustang, and P-38 are beautiful airplanes without question, but for me, the Focke-Wulf 190 was the prettiest, albeit by a small margin.

Although lacking the same performance specs as those mentioned above, I give a "thumbs up" to the P-40 Tomahawk, especially when in the markings of the Flying Tigers. This aircraft seems to present defiance with a "bad attitude".

 

Just my two cents worth

 

Paul

Is it the "Jack"?

 

 

I'm thinking "TONY" ......

OK, the Tony looks nice too. Do you have it in fs9?

My tastes were always a bit esoteric

 

http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r607/yramina/j7w1_6.jpg

jgf,

 

Your screenshot makes me want to download the plane, so what is it?

 

Nick

...so I Googled "Beautiful WWII fighters"

 

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h200/CHARL_photos/WWII%20Fighters.jpg

jgf,

 

Your screenshot makes me want to download the plane, so what is it?

 

Nick

 

Kyushu J7W1 Shinden (j7w1pr18.zip, like all of Kazunori Ito's prop planes this is built on a turboprop base, but a little work with the .cfg and .air files will give it a proper engine and gauges)

 

Designed as a high altitude interceptor to counter the B-29s, two prototypes were flown in 1945; 2100hp, 400+kt, 39k ft ceiling, 4 x 30mm cannon. One still exists, dismantled and in rather poor condition, in the Smithsonian.

 

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/kyushu-j7w1-shinden-magnificent-lightning

 

http://www.j-aircraft.com/walk/tim_hortman/timj7w1.htm

jgf,

thanks a lot.

 

I cannot edit ac cfg files.

 

 

Can you send me a pm with your own ac.cfg and air file please?

 

Nick

There were many good looking airplanes used during WW II... if I had to choose a personal 'favorite', I would have to choose the J2M3 Raiden, the "Jack".

 

Been attracted to it since I was a little tyke... kind of a stubby, shorter, more portly version of the Zero-sen.

 

Alan :pilot:

Hi, without hesitating, I choose the Spitfire as my n°1, anytime.

 

 

Snapshot taken from here (a humble video of my making) :

 

 

BTW Wing_z, the girl on the left in the picture, is'nt that the famous Soviet sniper Lioudmila Pavlitchenko, who killed 309 Germans in less than a year?

 

Luc.

Well spotted!

Beautiful and extremely lethal, Ms Pavlichenko... from the Ukraine.

Against its virtues was its silly narrow undercarriage and the lack of forward visibilty due to its long nose.

Nothing silly about it at all. The aeroplane was designed to operate from grass strips and still does successfully today. Of course it does require a little more skill and awareness from the pilot, but other aircraft of this configuration were worse in this respect, notably the Spitfire's rival, the Bf109, well known for tricky ground handling. The Spitfire was relatively benign although you had to be aware the aeroplane was nose heavy. As for visibility, the view from the Spitfires cockpit was not really any worse than others of the period and certainly better than some.

Best to read what the experts say, rather than make up your own story:

The only challenges on landing are poor forward visibility and the need to be pretty comfortable with three-point landing technique. A gently curving approach to the runway threshold will solve the visibility problem. (And, by the way, all those World War II Spitfire veterans were taught that way and will expect to see it.) Over the fence at 90 knots and a last look speed of 80 knots and you will be well set up. Take a good look at the cross wind as you come short final and program your mind for how much side slip you want to feed in on the flare, because it is not easy to judge the drift once that long nose starts to come up. Flare to a tail low or three point attitude, remembering again how light and responsive the elevator is, and enjoy the arrival. It may jiggle around a bit on that ridiculously narrow undercarriage, but there is no mean streak in this airplane. Although the tail wheel is free castoring, the big rudder is very effective as long as you are reasonable fast with your feet.

More here:

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/255/Flying-the-Spitfire--with-Mike-Potter.aspx

As it happens I've read what the experts say for getting on forty years or more. And you know? That DH Chipmunk I flew in 1976 had no better forward visibility either. That's how it is with taildraggers.

 

Irrespective of what was said in that clip, the fact is the forward visibility of a Spitfire is essentially no different to any WW2 fighter, some of which share the same engine and relationship to the pilot position. You will see the same things said about other aircraft. The US Navy for instance expected pilot seat installations that could be raised to improve visibility on approach, and originally rejected the Corsair for its poor forward visibility amongst other reasons. What? I made that up? It's aviation history and engineering. Sorry I happen to have added my cents to your opinion, but hey, isn't the internet a wonderful thing?

Looks like Most Beautiful topic has turned into the Beast ......

Another thing about the Spitfire- After the Battle of Britain it was decided to throw out 4 of the machineguns and replace them with 2 cannons for more punch because in the BoB it was found the German bombers could absorb a fair bit of punishment before going down.

So the Spit went through the remaining 5 years of the war with 2 cannons and 4 MG's.

The explosive cannon shells also gave the Spit extra punch against hard ground targets.

Most other nations fighters also had a mix of cannons and MG's too, such as Germany, Japan and Russia, but surprisingly most American fighters only had MG's (P-40, P-47, P-51, Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair).

Sort of OT...

 

ScatterbrainKid -- over @ Mission4Today there was a Thread regarding "Shark Mouth" equipped airplanes, and I found this one at another FS Forum:

 

http://forums.simviation.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=176145

There are quite a few birds so equipped, including a couple more A-36's aside from the one in question @ Mission4Today...

 

Food for thought.

 

Alan :pilot:

Exactly right, Caldrail, I can remember way back in the mid 1970s, the big selling point for the Tomcat in the US Navy was that the drooped nose gave good downward visibility for carrier landings. It even - briefly - made Australian TV.

Oh it gets funnier yet. Back in '93 when I was training for my PPL, I was waiting outside a hangar for the return of the previous student flight and mentioned to the instructor that the Tiger Moth inside, resplendent in RAF silver, looked like a great aeroplane to fly. By coincidence that instructor had been the same who had given the owner his familiarisation and checkrides. Apparently when given control, the owner always entered a shallow dive despite constant urgings. Under questioning on the ground, the owner was baffled because he could not see forward, and therefore dropped the nose to see over the engine cowling sufficiently. The instructor reminded him that if he wanted to fly vintage aeroplanes, the lack of forward visibility was not unusual and he had better get used looking over the side of the cockpit :D