| Account limit of 2000 requests per hour exceeded. |
Please, can someone resolve an argument for me.?
In a discussion last night on WW2 fighter planes, I voted for the Focke-Wulf Ta152H or the F4U as the best fighter Planes. (I know the Ta 152H was an end to the war). A friend passed the F4U Corsair while another said the Grumman Hellcat was the best. Please can someone solve this argument for me. CATHORIO. Thank you all for the answers. My dilemma is that, yes, the Spitfire was a fantastic little plane, but its range was limited. It should be noted that the Spitfires have carburetors, not fuel injection, and the engines would quit for lack of fuel if the plane was flying upside down. One of my arguments led to this question. It was combat range of 395 miles.
In fact, if you look at the specifications. plans that you mentioned, each has its strengths and weaknesses. It depended on the mission, and this plan, he fought against. Maybe not a plane at all .... who was best against ground troops and anti-aircraft fire? For example, one of the worst planes duel in the war was the Stuka. And yet ... if I had to do some close combat support of ground troops, he could not be beat! It could come down to the ground almost vertically and drop a bomb a few meters from his own troops friends without endangering much. He was also shielded so it may take more turns than most anything in the air even today. The Mustang can catch fire so it is terrifying! Germans who faced the Mustang told me he had 10 times the anti-aircraft fire that all Russian or 5 times the British plan could take and it would still strafe the hell out of position! (This was a veteran of SS Panzer). The Japanese Zero could all kinds of damage as long as it was not hit too many times because it's agility is due to having almost no (and later NO) armor! Until we figured that out, we were afraid to $ Without Loved this plan, and once we discovered we simply use tours arsonists and they fell from the sky like birds so much shit.
