Quote from BlueFlame :

It's not what I think, it's fact. As a fighter it was bad, as an interceptor it was okay.

The amount of bombers it took down is fiction is it?

Quote from Gills4life :

The amount of bombers it took down is fiction is it?

You musn't know the difference between an outright fighter and an interceptor then.

Quote from BlueFlame :

You musn't know the difference between an outright fighter and an interceptor then.

I absolutely do, however, if this was only about fighters then why did you not say so in your thread title? I clearly stated that it took down more bombers than any other aircraft, and somehow that now means I do not know the difference? It did a fantastic job and is not given as much credit as it should. I never said Hurricane > all, so what's your problem? Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. You're getting boring.

Later Hurricanes were also quite effective 'tank busters' when they were fitted with some pretty huge cannons, they saw a lot of action in North Africa.

By no means a bad aircraft. In IL2 I've shot down more fighters with a Hurricane than with a Spitfire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj3_Ccx2vq0

A340
Sorry for the large image, but it does the elegance of this aircraft some justuce,

Quote from Gills4life :

I absolutely do, however, if this was only about fighters then why did you not say so in your thread title? I clearly stated that it took down more bombers than any other aircraft, and somehow that now means I do not know the difference? It did a fantastic job and is not given as much credit as it should. I never said Hurricane > all, so what's your problem? Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. You're getting boring.

I said they were a bad plane, which they were, taking bombers down (that generally have 2 + engines and are far less maneuverable) means jack, it shows that it's not good as a Fighter and only an Interceptor, that is why I mentioned it, because you said it was a good plane, when in reality, it wasn't, it couldn't forfil its real purpose which was to be as a fighter, the Bf110 was a far more effective plane as an interceptor (which wasn't its designed purpose) and that had two Jumo(BMW) V12s and thus was far less maneuverable indeed.. What saves the Hurricane was it's armements which really has nothing to do with how good it is, the Spitfires had the same cannons as the Hurricane, so it really does show how crap the Hurricane was, it was probably the pilots who flew it that just got the most out of it.

Quote from BlueFlame :

I said they were a bad plane, which they were, taking bombers down (that generally have 2 + engines and are far less maneuverable) means jack, it shows that it's not good as a Fighter and only an Interceptor, that is why I mentioned it, because you said it was a good plane, when in reality, it wasn't

No I did not, I said it did a tremendous job, which it did. At no point did I say it was superior to any other plane. I am VERY well aware of the plane's flaws. Please read more carefully next time.

Heinkel 162 A-2 "Salamander"

Quote from BlueFlame :

I said they were a bad plane, which they were, taking bombers down (that generally have 2 + engines and are far less maneuverable) means jack, it shows that it's not good as a Fighter and only an Interceptor, that is why I mentioned it, because you said it was a good plane, when in reality, it wasn't, it couldn't forfil its real purpose which was to be as a fighter, the Bf110 was a far more effective plane as an interceptor (which wasn't its designed purpose) and that had two Jumo(BMW) V12s and thus was far less maneuverable indeed.. What saves the Hurricane was it's armements which really has nothing to do with how good it is, the Spitfires had the same cannons as the Hurricane, so it really does show how crap the Hurricane was, it was probably the pilots who flew it that just got the most out of it.

It was not a bad plane, it was just quite a bit older design than the Spitfire, you can't comepare it to most of the aircraft it faced during the war because they were much more modern designs, at the time of its first flight in the mid 1930s it was a capable fighter, but was soon overtaken, it was not however, incapable from the start.

The Hurricane was also more tolerant to enemy fire than the Spitfire, easier to repair, and reliable. As well as being very stable and easy to fly, at the time of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane could out turn the Spitfire and the BF109E. It may have been outdated as a fighter, but that dosen't make an aircraft a bad aircraft.

Quote from 5haz :

It was not a bad plane, it was just quite a bit older design than the Spitfire, you can't compare it to most of the aircraft it faced during the war because they were much more modern designs, at the time of its first flight in the mid 1930s it was a capable fighter, but was soon overtaken, it was not however, incapable from the start.

The Hurricane was also more tolerant to enemy fire than the Spitfire, easier to repair, and reliable. As well as being very stable and easy to fly, at the time of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane could out turn the Spitfire and the BF109E. It may have been outdated as a fighter, but that dosen't make an aircraft a bad aircraft.

Well of course it will outturn probably anything because it's slow, and slow airspeed means you're able to turn tighter. If you say no to compare it to other planes because it was an old design then ok, but just because it's old doesn't mean it's not bad. In it's day maybe it was good, I don't know of this era, but in WW2 it sucked as a fighter which is what it's design was intended for.
The 109E wasn't very good at all, puny weaponry and a shaky handling, the E-4 was a big improvement, but the 109 sucked until it became 109F-1 because then it had elliptical wings and it improved speed and agility.
Examples :
If you are made for a purpose and you can't forfill the purpose, then you suck, it doesn't matter how many other things you can do, you were made for one purpose. As a human, if you can't reproduce then you aren't forfilling your purpose as a human, because our purpose is to reproduce. Do you see my point? A human might be good at killing things, but if it can't reproduce then it can't be a good example of a human can it?


But having said that, an old human can't be expected to be able to reproduce... so I guess I just agreed with you by default :P

TwinOtter

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/images/otter1.jpg

Quote from CrAZySkyPimp :

You can even see the pilot tweaking the throttle, what a great picture!

Quote from BlueFlame :

I said they were a bad plane, which they were, taking bombers down (that generally have 2 + engines and are far less maneuverable) means jack, it shows that it's not good as a Fighter and only an Interceptor, that is why I mentioned it, because you said it was a good plane, when in reality, it wasn't, it couldn't forfil its real purpose which was to be as a fighter, the Bf110 was a far more effective plane as an interceptor (which wasn't its designed purpose) and that had two Jumo(BMW) V12s and thus was far less maneuverable indeed.. What saves the Hurricane was it's armements which really has nothing to do with how good it is, the Spitfires had the same cannons as the Hurricane, so it really does show how crap the Hurricane was, it was probably the pilots who flew it that just got the most out of it.

That's why the hurricane had the most kills in the battle of Britain? The sturdy wings made it very reliable , but it's construction made it vulnerable to catching fire.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Do you see my point? A human might be good at killing things, but if it can't reproduce then it can't be a good example of a human can it?

So planes have to be able to reproduce to be successful? I'm afraid I can't see your point.

Om freking nom

It's not a plane, but it's not a normal boat either. It can fly up to 100m high, and it'll do over 400km/h in a straight line. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUTWWsh6iGA

Quote from SidiousX :

So planes have to be able to reproduce to be successful? I'm afraid I can't see your point.

Examples don't have to be related to be relevant.

Hawker Typhoon
http://www.richard-seaman.com/ ... tishWw2/HawkerTyphoon.jpg

Although it was designed as a medium/high altitude interceptor, was better suited as a fighter-bomber. Love that huge ass intake under the nose.

Long before the internet became mainstream I had a scrapbook from some company that send cards on some aircraft every month. I had almost two full folders.

Always loved the Mig 25 - The sowjet way, if too slow, just add power. It was a plane build around the two enormous Tumanskji turbines, out of stainless steel

I see Stag also like the Polikarpovs ;D

I've always like the weird stuff Blohm und Voss designed:

Quote from Crashgate3 :

I've always like the weird stuff Blohm und Voss designed:

Wow its not the fuselage and cockpit that astound me, it's the tail horizontal... if Salvador Dali designed a plane, this is what it would look like :P

Another awesome B&V creation - the HA 139. A giant, 4-engined catapult-launched(!) floatplane.

time for some lessons.


fighter


interceptor

oh and look how fat the f-22 is