It was 0-3 before and now it’s 0-5? Have you counted Crab’s postal vote which I’ve stolen too? 
:lol: I didn’t see SAM’s vote until I just opened it again then.
Stealing postal votes? You’re not a Brummie muslim working for Labour are you?
Spitfire! Any additional comment is useless!!! 
I’m perfectly capabe of voting for the Spitfire, any mark you care to name. See fes’s post for the reasons.
Edited to add: It also passes an important test, as does the Hurricane. That is, it looks just right framed against the Kent countryside.
So 7-0 to the Spit then. Got an essay to write up tonight, but if I get a chance, I might bang the next one up tonight, instead of leaving this one. Leaving the P-40 in this fight is just cruel, better to take it behind the barn and give it the good news with a shotgun, it’s for its own good.
So what are we left with so far? P-51, Corsair and Spitfire remains, while Boomerang, P-63 Kingcobra and P-40 are eliminated? Well, so far, the system works, but then again, so far we’ve only had easy choices! It’s going to be a real bitch when we’re left with either two Johnny-noname fighters or two classics. I’m dreading the inevitable P-51 vs. Spitfire.
That said, as much as the last one was an easy vote, I feel sort of sorry for the P-40 as it wasn’t a horrible aeroplane. Sure it was an also-ran, but it wasn’t a bad aeroplane. It was just an American pre-war design… all of the stank a little; it wasn’t the P-40’s fault!
The original draw is on page 2, about half way down Festamus.
Right, the Spit v P-40 debate is now closed, what little debate there actually was for that one!
Todays offering, however, should sort the men from the boys:
A6M Zero (Japan) v Bf-109K-4 (Germany)
A-6M8 Zero (Japan)
The final development of the famous line of fighters, the A6M8 was far better armed than its predecessors, but many of the old faults still remained. The Zero had dominated the skies above the Pacific for the first months of the war, but had gradually been caught up and surpassed by superior Allied designs such as the Corsair, Lightning, Mustang and Spitfire. Although the Zero was extremely manoueverable and easy to fly, thanks to its light design, it lacked armour protection both for the pilot and the fuel tanks. This meant that although it was far superior in many respects to the Allied fighters it first met (mostly Brewster Buffalo or Hurricane Mk1s for the Uk or the P-40 for the US), if the Allied pilot could get a shot at the Japanese, it would take very few rounds to cause either the death/wounding of the pilot or a hit and probable explosion on the fuel tank. Progressively upgraded throughout the war, the Zero gradually had some armour added in later marks, although this slightly degraded performance and was never as effectove as the heavier armour carried by most Allied fighters. The diving performance was also improved after it
was found that the Zero could be outdived by most Allied aircraft, meaning that even inferior aircraft could escape easily enough by going into a dive.
Engine: 1560hp Mitsibushi Kinsei 62 14 cylinder air cooled radial
Top Speed: 356 (573km/h) mph
Service Ceiling: 37,075ft (11,300m)
Rate of Climb: 16,685 ft (5085m) in 6 min 50 sec
Range: 956 miles (1538km)
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon, 2x 13.2mm MGs
Single 1,100lb bomb on the centreline and 2x 132lb bombs under the wings
Messerschmidt Bf-109K
The final development of another famous line of fighters, the Bf-109K had many improvements over its predecessors. A shortage of Fw-190s and the superiority of the Spitfire and Mustang over the Bf-109G meant that Messerschmidt were forced to upgrade the Bf-109 yet again. The engine was uprated and also had a nitrous oxide booster added. A pressurised cockpit was also fitted. Although rated as a very good fighter, by the time the Bf-109K-4 (the only mass produced version) was ready for production, the factories of the Reich were being battered day and night by RAF and USAAF bombers and only around 400 were finally produced.
Engine: 1550hp Daimler Benz DB-605 with nitrous oxide booster
Top Speed: 453mph (729km/h)
Service Ceiling: 41,010ft (12500m)
Rate of Climb: 4822ft (1470m)/minute
Range: 434 miles (700km)
Armament: 1x 30mm cannon, 2x 15mm MG
Hmmm, this is more difficult.
Both were used to great success… by the losing sides. Both were start-of-war aircraft which were struggle at times as the war went on.
I’m minded to go for the Bf-109.
The Zero seriously lost it’s grip in all aspects other than manoeuvrability. It was underpowered and that which gave it the virtues it possessed and made it a winner at the beginning of the war - a modern, light weight construction, also resulted in it’s ultimate downfall. Tactics could be used to negate the manoeuvrability advantage and after that, the ridiculously powerful American fighters arriving mid War put the Zero firmly into the position of also-ran. They didn’t even need to stay on a Zero’s tail to empty the guns into it - a quick burst would usually see to a Zero.
From an aeronautical engineering point of view, the Zero is quite a marvel but the compromises designed in to achieve the performance it had left little room for rescuing the situation once the enemy figured out ways to overcome the manoeuvrability advantages… the plane wasn’t powerful enough to slug it out and wasn’t quick enough to get away. Compare the earlier mark Zero’s to the Grumma Wildcat - sure, it’s better performing fighter, but the Wildcat is clearly going to take more punishment - it’s more than a tonne heavier. Whether this is a question of an inability of the Japanese to source a more powerful engine for the Zero, or whether they could have but didn’t wake up and smell the coffee, I don’t know.
The Bf-109 on the other hand is somewhat different to the Zero. While it always looks a physically smaller, lighter aircraft it is in fact around a ton heavier (empty) - a 109 empty is heavier than a Zero at MTOW. A more substantial airframe and more importantly, capable of having it’s performance extended greatly between the pre-war models and the end of war models. As BDL’s summary states - late mark 109 was “very good” - indeed it could mix it up with the Mustangs. The Zero certainly could not claim similar resurgence at any point after the time when allied tactics found ways to avoid a turning fight with the Zero. Sure the Zero was always much longer ranged than the 109, but then, it was a carrier aircraft for the Pacific theatre - it needed to be.
So - 109. It was able to stand the test of time and be competitive to the end of the war. The Zero was too reliant on the one trick, and that wasn’t enough.
Another vote for the -109 here. Capable of competing on nearly equal terms with the best fighters of the day throughout it’s life (something the Zero was never capable of - personally I’d argue that it was marginally capable against the best aircraft of the day in 1941/41, and only did so well because it never met them). The only advantage I can think of for the Zero is range, and that was only valuable in some very restricted circumstances found only really in the Pacific.
I’d go for the -109 myself, for the survivability factor - the extra armour gives any pilots that few rounds of damage more to get themselves out of danger. The Bf-109 also has speed on its side, as well as the pressurised cockpit making high altitude flight far more comfortable for the pilot.
3-0 to the Bf-109 then, with, say, 48 hours(ish) left for voting.
Not really anything to add to the debate on the two. In its day the Zero was king of the far east. In fact the allies discounted its ability. It allowed the japanese Navy (IJN) to strike from a greater distance than the US Navy (approx 100 miles). However, its the man in the machine as much as the machine here and after Midway, the man in the Japanese machine was invariably much less trained than his Allied counterpart.
As for the 109, well it proved its ability, like the Spitfire, to be continually upgraded. On the negative side, it had such flimsy wings that they couldnt hold the landing gear. This led to an awfull lot of landing accidents. As the war went on the Germans too cut back on trianing due to lack of fuel and as a consequence became less effective.
But machine against machine, well the answer can only be the 109.
I know this topic is only about existing planes, but as a natural born patriot id like to add some polish accent. Since Poland was first to fight against Germany, we haven’t got chance to end project of renovation of polish military that started in late 36. From many prototypes of modern planes, the PZL.62 is the one of the best. It could be even a best of the fighters if he had chance to get into production.
PZL.62
Engine: ~1600HP Hispano-Suiza 12Z, 12 cylider, liquid cooled
Top Speed: 640-660 km/h
Service Ceiling: ~9000m
Range: ~800km
Max start weight: 3250kg
Weight: 2000kg
Armament: 1x Hispano-Suiza 20mm (behind the rotor), 6x PWU36 7,9mm and up to 500kg of bombs under wings.
Delete this post if it dosen’t fulfil norms of posting in this topic.
Not a bad looking fighter for late 1930s that mate, pity it never got into production before you had your uninvited visitors from the west, could have given the Luftwaffe some nasty surprises.
Which country made the engines.
It suposed to be the French Hispano-Suiza 12Z (HS-89ter) constructed in 39, in prototype where used other engine becose Hispano-Suiza was still in first stage of production and didn’t had projected HP. All spec are only suppositions and never where reached in real flight. All test on the proper engine where stoped by the war.
Contrary to what many people believe, Polish Air Force was NOT destroyed on the ground in the first few hours of the conflict and, despite being numerically and technically inferior to German Luftwaffe, managed to put on a brave defence. German Quartermaster General’s reports admitted the loss of 258 planes throughout the Polish Campaign, and it can be stated with absolute certainty that more than 100 of these aircraft were shot down by Polish fighter pilots.
I am belived in that , :shock: now i not belive anymore
Although I dont doubt the numbers as they are from all causes. I would query the significant numbers of German tanks destroyed by Polish airpower. However the site makes an interesting read, good find Clause.
An interesting observation is that, throughout the campaign, more than 30 Polish aircraft were shot down by Polish anti-aircraft fire. This sad testimony to the efficiency of Polish AA gunmen.
From same site ,do you read this look’s like a Polish have friendly fire too.
I check did germans have friendly fire ,in luftwaffe .
Everyone has friendly fire mate. Imagine being an AA gunner and suddeny aircarft fly towards you. What would be your first reaction?