How many of you guys getting the Hurricane (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

Rob,

I just don't know how strong polystone is. Maybe there are some experts out there that do. One thing that I would like and K & C did with the first polystone planes is have a stand. I don't know if they plan on doing that here. Stands buy you a little space.

Yes a stand would work well.I want to have couple on an Airfield dio,but after that space will be very limited.I don't have any 1/30 planes and i'm not sure i realise how big it is going to be when it gets here!

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

The Spitfire is certainly attractive. However, assuming equal pilot abilities, the Zero was the BEST dog-fighter in WWII.

Allied fighter pilots (including those in Spitfires) were advised to use a surprise diving attack against Zeros rather than take on the Zero in a dog-fight as it was just too agile.

Sorry, Oz, I have to disagree with you about the Zero. The Zero was the most maneuverable fighter in the Pacific Theater in the early war period, but it was so maneuverable because it lacked armor protection, self sealing gas tanks, and speed. It was also up against outdated allied fighters like the Brewster Buffalo, P40 Tomahawk, and Wildcat.

It was completely overmatched once the Hellcat and Corsair entered the war, and frankly, it was no match for the Mustang in any category, including maneuverability, once it entered the theater late in the war.

The late Mark Spitfires (IX on), the Mustang, the FW190 all outclassed the Zero in capability. The legend of the Zero was built on experienced Japanese airmen fighting rookie airmen in outdated fighters, and was utterly debunked once the Zero fought experienced airmen in modern fighters. The kill ratio of the Hellcat was an obscene 10-1 over the Zero, and the Corsair was referred to by the Japanese pilots as "whispering death". The Zero was a great plane from 1939 to 1942. From 1943 on it was obsolete.

 

[lancer]

Sorry, Oz, I have to disagree with you about the Zero. The Zero was the most maneuverable fighter in the Pacific Theater in the early war period, but it was so maneuverable because it lacked armor protection, self sealing gas tanks, and speed. It was also up against outdated allied fighters like the Brewster Buffalo, P40 Tomahawk, and Wildcat.

It was completely overmatched once the Hellcat and Corsair entered the war, and frankly, it was no match for the Mustang in any category, including maneuverability, once it entered the theater late in the war.

The late Mark Spitfires (IX on), the Mustang, the FW190 all outclassed the Zero in capability. The legend of the Zero was built on experienced Japanese airmen fighting rookie airmen in outdated fighters, and was utterly debunked once the Zero fought experienced airmen in modern fighters. The kill ratio of the Hellcat was an obscene 10-1 over the Zero, and the Corsair was referred to by the Japanese pilots as "whispering death". The Zero was a great plane from 1939 to 1942. From 1943 on it was obsolete.

Good argument and true. Also the reason why claiming which plane was the best is a waste of time. All combat aircraft become obsolete relatively fast. The next "best" is always just around the corner. The Zero ruled the Pacific within it's timeframe and was then by-passed by many new fighters, just as the Mustangs and Spitfires ruled the skies of NWE late in the war. Even these great fighters were rendered obsolete by the new jets and would have been replaced (or destroyed by 262's) had Germany been in a position to continue the war. Within it's time and place, the Zero was the best, just as it was replaced by the F6F's and F4U's as the war progressed. Air superiority can be a fleeting situation in war and the winner will be the one who adapts and has the ability to progress. The Japanese and Germans couldn't keep up, for whatever reason (development, manufacturing, manpower inadequacies) and as result got blown out of the skies. -- Al

 

[Spitfrnd]

Yes it was a superb aircraft wasn't it.But am i right in thinking that by War's end they were in turn outclassed by US fighters?.I'm happy to be totally wrong on this but i'm sure i read that somewhere.

Rob

I am pleased to say for the sake of your national pride that you are totally wrong on this mate. The best late war fighter the US had was the P-51 but it would not turn with the Mark IX and they were relatively equal in speed, climb, dive and roll rates. The Mark XIV "Griffon" Spitfire was in a different class and could run and climb away from the P-51, as well as still out turn it with relatively the same roll rates. They even used Mark XIVs to chase down V-1s and a Mark XIV had the first credited kill of a Me 262. The P-51D model of course had better range and cockpit visibility but the B and C models were actually the better dogfighters.

The unbelievable magic of the Spitfire was the continuation of the relative superiority of its airframe with simple engine changes through its various vintages. It could best any German or Italian fighter at every point throughout the war except for a brief period when the FW190A was introduced and was decidedly better in climb and speed than the Mark V Spitfire in service when it was introduced. Of course, that was soon remedied with the so called interim Mark IX (with a more powerful Merlin engine and which ended up being permanent) and every Mark there after.

I have read just about every published test report on these aircraft, as well as actual combat reports and have spent more hours than I can remember developing computer flight models of these aircraft based on actually aerodynamic inputs and they consistently lead to the same conclusion. The P-51 was a great fighter but it was not better than a Mark IX or VIII and not as good as a Mark XIV. The only other fighter in the same class as these two was the FW190, especially the Dora, but its only advantage was roll rate and even that was nullified by the clipped wing Mark IX, VIII and XIV. Incidentally the Spitfires advised to only dive with Zeros were the Mark Vs that were initially deployed in the Pacific. The Zero could out turn any thing at low speed but the Mark VIII and IX and even the Mark V with adjusted tactics had no difficulty dispatching them. Essentially the only advantage the Zero had was at relatively low speed and G; just read the reports by Clive "Killer" Caldwell and you will see that even the Mark V could easily best a zero if flown properly. Below are some excepts from one of his reports describing an early engaugement between one of his Mark V sections and a larger number of Zeros:

Engaging in turns with a Zeke at about 180 mph IAS and pulling my aircraft as tight as possible, the Zeke did not dangerously close, until the speed began to drop, about the completion of the second turn. Breaking severely downward to the inside of the turn I experienced no difficulty in losing the Zeke. My engine cut momentarily in this maneuver. I observed Zekes to loop, to half roll and fire while on their backs, which, though interesting as a spectacle seemed profitless in dogfighting.....To summarize, in view of the whole circumstances surrounding the brief engagement, and despite the fact that both height and numbers favored the Zekes, I regard the Spitfire as a superior aircraft generally, though less maneuverable at low speeds. In straight and level flight and in dives the Spitfire appears faster. Though the angle of climb of the Zeke is steeper, the actual gaining of height seems much the same, the Spitfire going up at a lesser angle but at greater forward speed - an advantage. No difficulty was experienced in keeping height with the Zekes during combat. I believe that at altitudes above 20,000 feet the Spitfire, in relation to the Zekes will prove an even more superior aircraft in general performance.

Again these were Mark V Spitfires, not the much superior Mark IX or later versions.

Of course there are those out there with different opinions but they are simply that.

 

[1879fanatic]

I'm still holding out for a 1/32 scale B-17 that I can honor my Uncle Nat (17 pilot-taught me all there is to know about fishing, the ocean and boats) with by displaying it. Or 1/30 from K&C. I would save up just to get it.

Thanks for the wealth of info on the WWII fighters BTW!!!!!!
Mike

 

[jazzeum]

Mike,

Figarti makes a B 17 and I believe that if you contact them, they can personalize it so that you can honor your Uncle.

 

[1879fanatic]

Mike,

Figarti makes a B 17 and I believe that if you contact them, they can personalize it so that you can honor your Uncle.

Many Thanks, Brad!
Mike

 

[OzDigger]

I'm sure we had a similar discussion awhile back

Anyhow, I don't know about you guys but when 'Dog-fighting' is mentioned I think slow speed turns and rolls etc as they did in WWI.

The allied pilots had several advantages later in the war including radar, superior pilot experience and greater numbers. However all things being equal I stick with my opinion that the Zero was just better at classical dog-fighting than any other WWII aircraft I can think of. That said, no weapon exceeds at everything, and the Zero's slower dive rate and fragile structure made it a less effective fighter (not dog-fighter) as the war progressed.

 

[Spitfrnd]

A dogfight, or dog fight, is aerial combat between fighter aircraft. Dogfighting first appeared during World War I but it has been a component in every major war since, even though some had contended that increasingly greater speeds and longer range weapons would make dogfighting obsolete. In modern parlance, dog fighting is frequently termed air combat maneuvering, or ACM, which, as observed by Robert Shaw, refers to tactical situations requiring the use of individual basic fighter maneuvers, (BFM), to attack or evade one or more opponents.

Dogfighting or ACM has evolved considerably from WWI and the particular BFMs required for success always did and do continue to depend on the relative flight characteristics of the opponent aircraft. As Lancer aptly noted, air superiority is a waining thing and there is always the next generation of aircraft to make the current tactics obsolete. That said and putting stand off weapons aside, the key factors, that contribute to superiority in ACM have and remain speed, acceleration, climb rate, roll rate, turn rate and dive rate. For every aircraft, there are speed ranges and particular BFMs where these are optimized and to be truly superior over other aircraft, a fighter must have the ability to use its relative advantages in these to be able to predictably evade or get on the tail of its adversary under the conditions that it can reliably create. This is sometimes called dictating the conditions of the engagement. That is what the various Spitfire models could consistently do to their contemporary foes and why it was the superior dogfighting or ACM fighter of WWII.

Up to a point, the relative advantage of an aircraft in BFMs can be countered by brilliance in ACM, which it what the great aces all had. The RCAF pilot that trained me in T-38s had it too and while I certainly learned a great deal about flying an aircraft outside the designer's expectations, I freely admit that I did not and needed to rely on optimum tactics to prevail. Of course I must humbly confess that it has been sometime since I was trained in and practiced the art but I have tried to keep up on the theory and practice over the time.

 

[lancer]

Just to add one thing to the air combat discussion, it will not matter what aircraft a pilot is in if he does not see and identify his foe FIRST. Virtually every successful fighter pilot has outstanding eyesight and situational awareness. Beware the Hun in the sun! -- lancer

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Yes a stand would work well.I want to have couple on an Airfield dio,but after that space will be very limited.I don't have any 1/30 planes and i'm not sure i realise how big it is going to be when it gets here!

Rob

Then you will be shocked at the size - it's big. Visit a hobby store with corgi models and see the size of their 1/32 aircraft.

And that is a 1/32 scale Me109 - The Spitfire is a bigger plane and the K&C planes are 1/30.

Terry

 

[Spitfrnd]

Yes a stand would work well.I want to have couple on an Airfield dio,but after that space will be very limited.I don't have any 1/30 planes and i'm not sure i realise how big it is going to be when it gets here!

Rob

They are indeed big at these scales Rob, especially the Hurricane. Just a few numbers on the actual sizes (wing span x length) of these will show that rather well:

Hurricane Mk I: 40 ft x 31 ft, 5 in
Spitfire Mk I: 36 ft, 10 in x 29 ft, 11 in
Me 109E: 32 ft, 4 in x 28 ft, 4.4 in
Stuka A-B: 45 ft, 3 in x 36 ft, 5 in

Just convert these to inches and divide by 30 or 32 and you will see how big the models will be. I can easily put a dozen 1/72 Spitfires in the space I use for my two 1/32 ones.

BTW, the Corgi Ebay availability I noted was for the US. The shipping on these is rather brutal so it is best to find what you want locally.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

They are indeed big at these scales Rob, especially the Hurricane. Just a few numbers on the actual sizes (wing span x length) of these will show that rather well:

Hurricane Mk I: 40 ft x 31 ft, 5 in
Spitfire Mk I: 36 ft, 10 in x 29 ft, 11 in
Me 109E: 32 ft, 4 in x 28 ft, 4.4 in
Stuka A-B: 45 ft, 3 in x 36 ft, 5 in

Just convert these to inches and divide by 30 or 32 and you will see how big the models will be. I can easily put a dozen 1/72 Spitfires in the space I use for my two 1/32 ones.

BTW, the Corgi Ebay availability I noted was for the US. The shipping on these is rather brutal so it is best to find what you want locally.

Put the 1/30 Hurricane (16" x 12.6") with a Spitfire and a hut and some vehicles and figures and estimate the space the display would take. Probably nee a 4 ft. x 3 ft or larger area for the display to look good and not cramped.

Terry

 

[Rob]

Then you will be shocked at the size - it's big. Visit a hobby store with corgi models and see the size of their 1/32 aircraft.

And that is a 1/32 scale Me109 - The Spitfire is a bigger plane and the K&C planes are 1/30.

Terry

They are indeed big at these scales Rob, especially the Hurricane. Just a few numbers on the actual sizes (wing span x length) of these will show that rather well:

Hurricane Mk I: 40 ft x 31 ft, 5 in
Spitfire Mk I: 36 ft, 10 in x 29 ft, 11 in
Me 109E: 32 ft, 4 in x 28 ft, 4.4 in
Stuka A-B: 45 ft, 3 in x 36 ft, 5 in

Just convert these to inches and divide by 30 or 32 and you will see how big the models will be. I can easily put a dozen 1/72 Spitfires in the space I use for my two 1/32 ones.

BTW, the Corgi Ebay availability I noted was for the US. The shipping on these is rather brutal so it is best to find what you want locally.

Thanks guys,i may have underestimated how much space i will need for an airfield with two or three planes,it looks like more books will be put on shelves on the wall to leave more floor space.I'd like to maybe Hang an aircraft but as Brad said earlier the polystone planes may be pretty heavy.

I'm going to have to go up to the office and have a rethink,thanks for the advice and sizes guys.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Rob,

Perhaps what you could do is hang some pieces of wood from the ceiling with some brackets (tightly secured) and on them place the airplane.

 

[damian]

I think that they weren't sure how the Hurricane would do so they were probably conservative, just to hedge their bets.

It doesn't seem to be rocket science to know 88 guns and spitfires are going to sell like hotcakes. They seem to be perenially popular with collectors, A bit like Tiger tanks I suppose.

 

[thebritfarmer]

I think that if you anchored hooks in the ceiling properly and attached a good strong fishing line you would be OK. After all they make line strong enough to catch a shark. Surely a poly stone plane doesn't weigh that much !!!

 

[Rob]

Rob,

Perhaps what you could do is hang some pieces of wood from the ceiling with some brackets (tightly secured) and on them place the airplane.

Thats a good idea Brad,that might work for me.I'll have the first couple of aircraft on the Airfield dio and then hang any extra planes i get.So far the ones I really want are the Hurricane,Spit,Typhoon and Stuka,I have a dio in mind for the Stuka.

Rob

 

[damian]

Why did Corgi stop making the 1:32 planes?

 

[OzDigger]

A dogfight, or dog fight, is aerial combat between fighter aircraft. Dogfighting first appeared during World War I but it has been a component in every major war since, even though some had contended that increasingly greater speeds and longer range weapons would make dogfighting obsolete. In modern parlance, dog fighting is frequently termed air combat maneuvering, or ACM, which, as observed by Robert Shaw, refers to tactical situations requiring the use of individual basic fighter maneuvers, (BFM), to attack or evade one or more opponents.

Dogfighting or ACM has evolved considerably from WWI and the particular BFMs required for success always did and do continue to depend on the relative flight characteristics of the opponent aircraft. As Lancer aptly noted, air superiority is a waining thing and there is always the next generation of aircraft to make the current tactics obsolete. That said and putting stand off weapons aside, the key factors, that contribute to superiority in ACM have and remain speed, acceleration, climb rate, roll rate, turn rate and dive rate. For every aircraft, there are speed ranges and particular BFMs where these are optimized and to be truly superior over other aircraft, a fighter must have the ability to use its relative advantages in these to be able to predictably evade or get on the tail of its adversary under the conditions that it can reliably create. This is sometimes called dictating the conditions of the engagement. That is what the various Spitfire models could consistently do to their contemporary foes and why it was the superior dogfighting or ACM fighter of WWII.

Up to a point, the relative advantage of an aircraft in BFMs can be countered by brilliance in ACM, which it what the great aces all had. The RCAF pilot that trained me in T-38s had it too and while I certainly learned a great deal about flying an aircraft outside the designer's expectations, I freely admit that I did not and needed to rely on optimum tactics to prevail. Of course I must humbly confess that it has been sometime since I was trained in and practiced the art but I have tried to keep up on the theory and practice over the time.

Hi Bill, if we can't even agree on the definition of the term 'Dog-fighting' I don't see much point in debating the subject of Best WWII Dog-fighter Heck, I guess there are even some modern day experts that claim aerial combat between missile armed aircraft as being Dog-fighting - I do not.

Suffice to say I agree the Spitfire and other late war allied fighters proved to be better fighters than the Zero in terms of loss ratios. However we have to keep in mind that on most encounters between late war allied fighters and Zeros the allied pilots had advanced warning via radar and were able to to get above incoming Zeros for a diving attack. This allowed them to gain speed for subsequent diving attacks. To me that is superior tactics in aerial combat rather than Dogfighting.