Best fighter [Archive] - The Great Planes and warbirds Community

simon

7th January 2003, 19:18

ah, the old "Could the Me262 have won the war if it had been used properly?" debate.

Personally, I dont think it could. It was certainly a fine plane, and if the Luftwaffe had enough experienced pilots and the conviction to use it as a fighter instead of a bomber, then it would have made some serious holes in the Allied Air Offensive, and may have even prolonged the war, but it couldn't have reversed an Axis defeat.

Even if it had been available a full year earlier the German strategic position had already become untenable, and defeat was really just a matter of time.

Firstly, to put this in perspective, in winter 1942/43 the largest and one of the best formations in the Wehrmacht, the 6th Army, was encircled and destroyed by Marshal Chuikov at Stalingrad. In Summer 1943, the German panzer force suffered losses that they never recovered from in the largest tank battle of all time at Kursk. As the Russians increased in strength, the Germans were being forced to conscript 16 year olds into the army, because there wasn't enough able bodied men to fill the man-power shortage, without the Army to hold the ground, the Airforce is irrelevant.

The Me262 couldn't have affected things on the eastern front, so the Red Army would have continued to push steadily westward.

Secondly, and one thing many people forget when considering this. The only way to completely halt the Allied air offensive would have been to destroy the factories that produced the Allied bombers. For Britain this wouldn't have been too difficult, although it was something the Luftwaffe couldn't achieve in either the Battle of Britain, or the Steinbock raids in 1944/45. But what about the factories building the Fortresses and Liberators? No Me262 even without its feeble bombload could even reach (Neither could any German aircraft except the Ju290!), nevermind harm any of those. So while German pilots became fewer and fewer, Allied bombers would still become greater and greater in number.

Finally, what about the Atomic Bomb? Once atomic weaponary became available in increasing numbers, even if Germany were able to hold out beyond spring 1945, by autumn the US would be in a position to start making the Reich glow in the dark.

So with all that in account, I doubt the Me262 could have won the war, maybe it could have delayed things, and perhaps if things worked out differently there may have been the chance for the Germans to secure a negotiated peace (Although again, I doubt it) instead of Unconditional Surrender.

curmudgeon

18th January 2003, 12:29

quote:Originally posted by simon

ah, the old "Could the Me262 have won the war if it had been used properly?" debate.

Well everyone seems to forget the British had had the easily assembled DH100 Vampire - at least as fast as, lighter than, with longer legs, and greater altitude, and much more manoeuvrable than the Me262 - since test flights in 1943 ... but they chose not to mass produce it until after the war.

Why? well they weren't romantic technofreaks and it wasn't needed. Simply the German effort was being overwhelmed, don't change a winning strategy. Mosquitos, and even Tiger Moths, were more important than bringing a new jet aircraft into service.

Unbelievable? ... well history shows that even on their best days the Me262 was effectively irrelevant.

Technically the axial-flow engines of the 262 were ahead of the German capability to make them reliable ... the engines needed to be nursed and then seldom got 50h between failures (and either engine failing was a disaster). In contrast the British centrifugal-flow engines were long-term a dead-end ... but in 1944-45 were delivering thrust and several hundred hours mean time between failures.

Even had the Germans been able to get all several thousand 262 airframes into the air they would, within days, have been down to a few hundred servicable aircraft because of the engine problems ... and Mustangs, Thunderbolts and Tempests had a lot of success during the long, straight landing runs required by the jet, as well as killing them during post take-off when any attempt at manoeuvre seems to have sent the jet into the ground.

simon

24th January 2003, 20:36

I don't think it's entirely fair to say that the Me262 was completely irrelevant, even on it's best days, since you only need to look at the achievements of Adolf Galland's Jagd Verbande 44 to see what the aircraft was capable of, if handled correctly. OK JV44 were probably the most skilled unit of fighter pilots to have ever existed, but even so...

The capabilites of the Me262 were hampered for a variety of reasons, yes the engines were unreliable (I had read elsewhere that they frequently failed after as little as 5 hours), the undercarriage was also weak and unreliable leading to a number of accidents landing, the Luftwaffe had by this point exhausted its capabilities to train new pilots and mechanics, and those that the training schools were turning out were probably as dangerous to themselves as they were the enemy in many cases (Although this was a fault of the system, not the aircraft itself).

If the Luftwaffe had been able to get all several thousand airframes airborne, the Allies would have found it far more difficult to catch them taking off or landing, so there would have been fewer casualties, and the achievements of the operational fighter Geschwader does seem to indicate that if they were flown by competant airmen they probably would have made significant holes in the American daylight bomber forces.

This is all in the realms of "What if...?" though.

The point I'm trying to make, is that the Me262 was for it's time a superb interceptor, but to repeat what I said in my last post, it would not have been able to win the war alone, although it may have delayed defeat.

I would also like to say that to describe the German designers as romantic technofreaks is equally unfair. At the time Germany was badly outnumbered and fighting for survival, the only thing they could do was to try and even the odds a little by equiping their troops with the best weapons they could.

We know now that by this point defeat was pretty much inevitable, however equally, we should remember that Britain was written off in 1940 by most international observers, as was the Soviet Union in 1941, so who knows, with a better direction and more conviction in the right projects at an earlier stage, and better leadership among the Generals, maybe Germany could have avoided defeat, or at least secured a negotiated peace...

Paolo Tagliaferri

25th January 2003, 00:40

I think that after Barbarossa's failure Germany's fate was decided ... and would have not changed even if Germany could manage to develop more "secret weapons" in a bigger scale ...

simon

25th January 2003, 17:39

Militarily, I agree with you. I was really trying to indicate that the view of the Germans as "Romantic Technofreaks" was unfair because they had to at least try to stave off defeat, and the secret weapons programmes seemed the only option.

And also to use the old military quote, "In war, nothing is certain."

:)

Ricky

18th February 2003, 18:35

Getting back to the theme of the right engine for the right airframe, may I suggest a minute's silence for the Westland Whirlwind.
An aircraft that had both the looks and the potential to become one of the greatest aircraft of the war, but was crippled from the start by the decision to use Peregrine engines rather than Merlins.

simon

20th February 2003, 23:09

I find it interesting, given the other posts, your own post and the responses I've had via e-mail how popular the Whirlwind seems to be!

It's true that it was badly let down by the choice of Peregrines, similarly the Manchester Bomber was equally badly let down by the Vulture, although in the latter case it was successfully re-engined with Merlins and became the Lancaster, which makes me wonder why the same wasn't done for the Whirlwind...

A combination of factors counted against the poor Whirlwind, as mentioned in other posts, but to recap, high landing speed limited opportunities for deployment, I've read it was a tricky plane for inexperienced pilots, and I've recently found that the cannon were the early drum fed Hispanos, so the Whirlwind could only carry 60 rounds per gun, or enough ammunition for about six seconds of fire. The implications in a dogfight are quite serious, you've got to be pretty sure of your shot before you risk any of you precious ammunition, whereas say a Bf109E-4 pilot, with 60 seconds gunfire for its two Machine guns can more or less fire at will, the Bf109's chances of getting a lucky shot are going to be pretty good, the Whirlwind's chances are going to be pretty much zero.

Finally, by the time the problems with the Whirlwind could have been sorted out, either re-engined to Merlins or the Peregrines developed to improve their reliability, there were already planes that were equally good in service that required little or no development, the Mosquito and the Beaufighter.

I guess proof of just how successful the Whirlwind could have been, given enough effort can be seen by the achievements of the P-38 Lightning, but it just wasn't to be...

curmudgeon

21st February 2003, 15:07

quote:Originally posted by simon

Militarily, I agree with you. I was really trying to indicate that the view of the Germans as "Romantic Technofreaks" was unfair because they had to at least try to stave off defeat, and the secret weapons programmes seemed the only option.

And also to use the old military quote, "In war, nothing is certain."

:)

I wrote a long reply, but I lost it in a glitch.

Lanchester's law is key - effectiveness goes up with relative strength and with the square of the number. The n-square term dominates, which is why for production purposes the Allies ceased innovation by mid 1944 and just built.

The Me262 was a contributor to German defeat as it didn't have that great a combat superiority and it sure consumed resources that would have allowed production of many more more ordinary fighters. Even worse its engines were always unreliable.

simon

27th February 2003, 16:54

I think the Me262 could have been made effective, but I agree that in many ways it probably took more out of the German war effort than it put back, and probably concentrating on the likes of the Ta152 and He219 would have achieved more.

In all fairness I think a far greater drain on the German resources were probably the "V" weapons, and most of the luftwaffe's other projects. I'd be interested if anyone had some really hard facts to show how much effort was wasted on the heavy bomber projects of 1942-44, especially the "Amerika" bombers.

One of the biggest problems of course was that the Germans in general were pursuing too many avenues of research, but as the old saying goes, hindsight is always 20/20, and they had no real way of telling which of the many promising projects were actually going to yield results.

marelepierre

1st March 2003, 08:16

Hello guys! Nice to see the new forum.
How about the Tempest ? I know about those mechanical problems with the gas pumps, but still, it was fast, and had some very good results.;)

curmudgeon

1st March 2003, 11:41

quote:Originally posted by simon

I think the Me262 could have been made effective, but I agree that in many ways it probably took more out of the German war effort than it put back, and probably concentrating on the likes of the Ta152 and He219 would have achieved more.

In all fairness I think a far greater drain on the German resources were probably the "V" weapons, and most of the luftwaffe's other projects.

The piston-engined interceptors would have required only minor conversion to type training. Pilot training was another bottle-neck in making the jets effective.

The V-weapons are interesting. Neither the V1 or the V2 had much real demand for strategic materials. The drain on technical expertise is probably impossible to evaluate (could these people have worked usefully on other projects?). The V1 was actually a clever weapon but the technology was only 'almost there'. Aim was a core problem, and tactics were not worked out (a time problem, it was rushed into service post 6 June). If V1s could have been controlled by the blind-bombing methods available even in 1941 they would have been much more dangerous (weapon design and the existence of radio-counter-measures precluded this). Also the availability of radar-controlled AA and the proximity fuse allowed for really effective AA against a weapon that flew straight and level.
Wrt the V2 I once read a history of the weapon that argued more people were killed making it than by it as a weapon. The article made a good case that von Braun knew of the slave labour conditions, having visited the factories, and that he certainly had a case to answer as a war criminal ... a case stronger than several others who were executed for their use of concentration camp labour.

simon

3rd March 2003, 23:42

Personally I doubt the V-1 could have ever been turned into a really effective weapon, the vulnerability to interception by fighters and AA fire, plus the relatively poor warhead and range would always limit
its effectiveness.

For both the V-1 and V-2 what you have is a weapon that could only ever be ineffective, because there was very little within the operational radius that was worth hitting, and nothing that could make a significant difference to the outcome of the war.

If they could have been made accurate enough to hit a target like a bridge or a ship then maybe they could have been used as an effective tactical weapon.

Personally I think the V-1, V-2 and the much lesser known V-3 were all significant drains on the German war effort. The wasted R&D facilities, funding, fuel and materials would all have been far better invested elsewhere.

By contrast the Jets could have made a contribution, even if you took promising pilots out of operational piston engined squadrons for conversion training, as I've said in other posts, the achievements of Jv44 show what could be achieved if used by skilled pilots. However I acknowledge that by the time the Jets could have made an impact inadequate pilot training, engine reliability, fuel shortage, and Allied Air Superiority would have all played their part in reducing the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe as a whole.

Finally to reiterate, I'm not saying the Me262 could have won the air war for the Luftwaffe, by the time it entered service the war as a whole was already lost it was just a matter of time, but it could have delayed things, and if it used en-masse by reasonably skilled pilots, they would have made some real holes in the Allied bomber formations.

Another big and often overlooked limiting factor for the Me262, and probably at least as critical as the pilot shortage, was the lack of skilled mechanics to service the new plane and its engines.

Ricky

13th March 2003, 00:47

All very true, but the mystique of the 262 will live on - playing the 'what if' game is just far too much fun, hence my liking for the Westland Whirlwind...
There is after all an abundance of aircraft of all types that never really made it due to external circumstances, be it the wrong choice of engine, a political decision, or the invasion & occupation of the host country. In terms of fighters, this applies especially to the French in 1940, and Italy in, er, 1944 (or whenever it was that the armistaace was signed). Both countries had several very promising aircraft (the Bloch 150 series and the Dewontine 520 for France, and the Macci 200 late series for Italy) that were only used in small quantities after the surrender of their countries.
Fertile ground for the romantically minded.

In terms of large-scale production fighters, the Yak-3 should realy take the prize. After all, the Luftwaffe pilots were expressly forbidden to dogfight with Yak-3's above (or was it below?)
[:I]
a certain height.

The biggest problem when evaluating the 'best fighter' is that towards the end of the war, the Axis powers were becoming very pushed for both resources and experienced pilots, and however good a plane, if the pilot is bad, or if it cannot be properly maintained, it will naturally gain a bad combat record. As an example, I seen to recall an account of a single Mitsubishi Zero (flown by a Japanese ace) dogfighting with several (I think it was four) Hellcats, and emerging
without a single bullethole. By that stage of the war, the Zero was more-or-less obsolete, the standard of Japanese aircrew had fallen dramatically, and therefore Zeros were seen as relatively easy prey for the Hellcat.

[:p]

simon

13th March 2003, 07:03

I love some of the What Ifs, there was another British plane designed around the same time as the Whirlwind, but by Glosters, I don't think it even got as far as being given a name, but it was fast and heavily armed, and may have matured into the British equivilant of the Bf110, for some reason it never got beyond the prototype stage, and was quietly forgotten as the demands of war necessitated a concentration on the existing single engine fighters.

At the moment I'm in the process of going through a tabletop game I have and adapting it to include some of the What If aircraft, at the moment I'm developing a Europe 1946 scenario which is proving interesting, although the guesswork involved is proving a bit of a headache!

Going back to the topic, in terms of fighters the Curtiss Hawks also deserve at least a passing mention, although not by far the best fighters of the war, they were available in great numbers and served most of the Allied nations well, although without distinction. I was tempted to mention the P-39 & P-59 Cobra's in the same sentence, but I couldn't, I just don't like them!

It is true that the Yak's are often overlooked, as is the Lavochkin La5FN, another of the Soviet's great fighters. As for the Yak-3, the Luftwaffe pilots were specifically ordered to avoid combat below 15,000ft after they tangled with them and got beaten in the skies over Kursk.

Although it's not always necessarily the best way of gauging the aircraft's capabilities when in air to air combat, I think toward the end of the war you really have to take the paper statistics for them for the reasons you suggest.

Ricky

13th March 2003, 19:12

Yes, I've seen pictures of the Gloster plane - results from the prototype were apparently very encouraging, but for some reason official interest was never there.
As to your 1946 adaption of the tabletop game (which sounds very interesting) are you considering such Allied planes as the Hawker Tempest II, Martin Baker MB.5, Bristol Buckingham, and all the others that were just too late for service or were cancelled due to the close of hostilities? And how about expansion of deployment of the British jet aircraft, notably the Gloster Meteor?
Hmm... I can see why you are having headaches!

Thanks for the confirmation re: the Yak-3, I can only access this site from work, so my access to reference material is limited.

simon

20th March 2003, 18:13

Yes I'm considering all those, including trying to estimate service dates of the Luftwaffe heavy bombers, estimating performances of aircraft that never even flew, VJ-Day cancellations, and promising prototypes. For some, like the Tempest MkII a lot of the information is already there, it's mainly the Luftwaffe and Japanese experimentals that make life interesting!

I've got to admit the whole thing's proving a lot more work than I first expected, but it is interesting researching it all the same!

Ricky

24th March 2003, 19:02

I suppose the main consideration would be the Hs126 Salamander, as the Germans had several thousand airframes ready to go by VE day. Although the lack of skilled pilots would presumably (due to the high landing speed, if nothing else) have doomed the few aircraft that would have had enough fuel to take off!
Personally, I am very interested in the more 'unconventional' designs - the Horten flying-wing jet fighters, for example, and especially the Japanese (arrgh, I forget the designation) tail-less jet with fore-planes. Although how these would have faired against the American Bearcats (which would have been in service by 1946) is a subject for much debate!

simon

25th March 2003, 17:47

Yes, the Salamander (Actually the He162), also known as the Volksjager (People's fighter) is an interesting one. It was designed to be flown by pilots drafted from Hitler Youth Glider Schools, given quick conversion training and thrown into combat. It was hoped the high performance of the aircraft would enable the pilots to attack the US bomber formations expend its ammunition and escape before the escorting fighters could engage them. This brings me to something of a quandry, the Volksjager was a desperate attempt to halt the US bombers, so would it have been designed and built if the situation were not desperate, i.e. if I say WWII goes on to 1946, would the He162 have actually been designed in Winter-Spring 1946 instead?

The first designs of the Volksjager indicate that it could have been a reasonably effective fighter, fast and heavily armed, if the serious structural weaknesses could have been cured and if there were sufficient trained pilots it may have made an impact. However in development the armament was downgraded from twin 30mm Mk108s to twin 20mm Mg151/20s because the structure couldn't handle the stress of the Mk108s firing, the shoulder mounted jet could have made things interesting to say the least for anyone attempting a conventional bail out, plus the real weakness of the He162 would always be political rather than anything else.

It was hoped that this new fighter piloted by the Nazi faithful of the Hitler Youth would be able to turn the tide against the Bolsheviks and the Western Allies and earn a great symbolic victory. However no-one seems to have considered how you could take a boy with no experience of powered flight and expect him to fly a fast jet accurately enough through a formation of heavily armed bombers and fire accurately enough to shoot any of them down!

As for the Pacific, there is a wealth of possibility there, you're right the F8F Bearcat, but also the F7F Tigercat would be entering service, also later models of Seafire, Firefly, Avro Lincoln bombers, plus some of the oddballs, like the Ryan Fireball (A hybrid Jet/Piston engined Navy Fighter). Plus it's not too much of a leap of the imagination to think that with the war dragging on the Allies may have stepped up their development of new aircraft and some like the Vampire might enter service slightly earlier.

Ricardo1174

29th March 2003, 01:44

Undoubtely the three best WWII performance fighter (propelled driven) were: The FW190D, P-51D, Spitfire Mk XIV. Regretfully the Spit XIV lacked the P-51D long range fuel tanks, but it's performance was very similar in climb, roll rate, speed, but it can easily out-turn any fighter of it's day. P-51D was impressively outstanding, long range, escort, dogfighting and nobody can change it's reputation because it definitively gained air superiority and did a great impact in war's fate....my favorite is the FW190D, I think that in good hands it was more than a match for any allied fighter including the P-51D...and it was proved!!! considering climb rate, roll rate, manoeuvreability, speed, dogfighting, except range....and of course the quality of german pilots were not the same of the early and mid years of the war.

What do you think?

SebastianC

29th March 2003, 04:53

Hi, Spitfire is my favourite fighter. So elegantly flight, more weapon power, user-friendly - and it is so beautiful!

Ricky

31st March 2003, 21:59

Oops, the Hs126 was a Parasol-monoplane Observation & General duties aircraft!
[:I]

Anyway, I agree, the Spitfire was certainly one of the most graceful fighters of the war. Personally I prefer the look of the cannon-armed & Merlin-engined Spitfires (mk.V etc) Gorgeous!

simon

1st April 2003, 18:05

Yay! Another vote for the Spitfire!

In looks the Merlin powered ones were definitely the better, although in performance and armament the later Griffin engined versions with the 4 20mm cannon could out-perform and outgun the Mustang, and most contemporary single engined single seaters.

Ricky

2nd April 2003, 21:19

I often think it quite sad that the Spitfire, such a glamourous and popularised aircraft in the early war years (for obvious reasons) is often overlooked (in the public eye) in the latter stages of the war in favour of the Thunderbolt/Mustang/Lightning, and even the Hawker Tempest. The Spitfire certainly kept abrest of (and often ahead of) the competition. I suppose it was just that it's limited range meant that it was less able to carry out the highly publicised 'taking the fight to the enemy' style, and so it fell from what is now called the 'media spotlight'.

Lovely 'plane, though.

simon

3rd April 2003, 18:16

The Spitfires still took the fight to the enemy, their range extended by the introduction in the MkIXs of Fuselage tanks behind the pilot and drop tanks, the proof of this is in the fact that the first Me262 was downed by Allied fighters was shot down by a Spitfire.

I think, as touched on in other posts the Spits fell from the limelight because the propaganda focus post Summer 1942 was all on the US Daylight bombing offensive and the bomber escorts. By comparison fighter sweeps were focused on much, much less.

Still, having praised up the Spits in the latter part of the war, I've always thought it a shame that one of the better (certainly one of the most hard working!) aircraft of the first years of the war, the Hurricane tends to get so eclipsed by the Spitfire, especially during the Battle of Britain. Although the Spitfires and Bf109Es were easily the better aircraft, the Hurricanes more than aquitted themselves.

Ricky

7th April 2003, 21:11

Indeed. I believe that I have read somewhere that Hurricanes (or rather, Hurricane-equipped squadrons) were responsible for shooting down more enemy aircraft than everything else (including Anti-aircraft fire) combined.
The Hurricane was certainly a fine aircraft, a good late-1930's fighter (Britain's first 300+ mph fighter) which evolved into a good ground attack aircraft, armed with 4 cannon, bombs, rockets, and even the Mk. IID with 2 40mm cannon for the anti-tank role. But that is really outside this discussion!

Ok, being as WW2 began when biplanes were still in service (although most countries had by now relegated them to secondary duties), what is everyone's favourite Biplane fighter of the war?

simon

8th April 2003, 03:07

My personal favourite of the Hurricanes is the MkIIb with 12 machine guns. You're right about the Hurricanes being credited with more kills although at the same time what people must remember is that where possible the Spitfires were used to keep the fighter escort occupied, whilst the Hurricanes went after the relatively easier to shoot down bombers.

As for the Bi-planes, my initial reaction is to say the Gladiator, but in all honesty I've always liked the Hawker Fury, the predecessor of the Hurricane (Which is obvious in its lines). A nice looking clean bi-plane which served in the Western Desert with two RSAAF squadrons briefly before being replaced by more modern planes.

Tobz

9th April 2003, 23:08

hmmm... well, from what I've read, the idea that the hurris dealt with the bombers whilst the spits tangled with the fighters is a bit of an old myth. I think the pilots were given that guidance as something to pursue whenever ideally possible - but as with most ideals and policies suggested by bigwigs and officers, the realities and confusion of combat meant that this was seldom actually the case. The radar of the time was basically incapable of making the distinction between aircraft other than a guess based on their speed/altitude. Squadrons were vectored onto approaching bogeys based principally on their location and availablility, rather than on any assumption as to what type of aircraft they were likely to be opposing. The Hurri too gets my vote for greatest fighter. I've also seen a quote somewhere that post war statistics showed that it downed more axis aircraft than all other allied planes combined... still, it had a three year headstart over its American contemporaries [}:)] Anyone source any stats on aircraft downed by type over the war? That would be an interesting document to study in detail

simon

10th April 2003, 17:46

Like I said I understand that this was largley what they tried to do, infact 11 Group got into the habit of trying to intercept with paired Squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes, so that they could do this, but as the old saying goes, no plan survives contact with the enemy.

Apparently also a significant number of Hurricane Pilots got their claims disallowed because surviving crew refused to accept that they'd been shot down by a Hurricane! I've even read recently of a German Bf109 pilot who was shot down and was disgusted that he'd been shot down by a Hurricane, a Spitfire would have been acceptable, but not a Hurri!

Anyway during the Battle of Britain squadrons were vectored based on an assumption of what type aircraft they would be opposing because Air Vice Marshall Park made a decision very early on that fighter sweeps over Kent and London would go unopposed. The logic was that fighters could do relatively little damage to 11 group's airfields, fighters were harder to shoot down and more likely to shoot down RAF fighters, plus if 11 group spent their time chasing Bf109s and Bf110s they would be more likely to be caught refuelling by subsequent bomber attacks, and destroyed on the ground without a chance to defend themselves. [:p]

Richard Mabert

12th April 2003, 10:05

Hello Chaps!
Happened to stumble across this site whilst testing a prop driving search engine. How about the Martin Baker MB5? Congratulations on an excellent topic for debate, to which there will never be a definitive answer..... Depends on your point of view!

Introduce a new type (e.g. MB-5)and you disrupt production lines. What makes a good fighter? One that kills, or one that protects?

In conversation with an RAF veteran of India/Burma theatre (Mohawks, Hurricanes and Thunderbolts)a couple of years back. He recounted an episode where his commanding officer arrived back in a much shot away Hurricane. Wheels up landing, skidding the full length of the airstrip, shedding wings, then rear fuselage, and finally
ending up in a paddy field..... C.O. found, shaken but not stirred, surrounded by the skeletal remains of the cockpit, without a scratch. He flew another operation later that day (in a different kite!)

On a lighter note, this chap told me that the P-47 Thunderbolt was very useful.......... when shot at, one could run around the fuselage to dodge the bullets!

Surprisingly for a Brit, my favourite WWII fighter is the PZL P.11. I confess that I am biased towards the "modern" concepts tried in the 1930s, and certainly, if WWII had started four or five years earlier, the P11 would have rated very highly. Whilst I feel the type has a definite aesthetic appeal, perhaps the reasons it is my favourite are a little more complex........

Most Brits will tell you the Spitfire was best, our Colonial friends will propose the P51 or P47. The FW190 and (earlier)Bf109s, MC202, Zero, Oscar could also make a case. I agree they all have their merits. What draws me to the PZL P.11 is that truly, they must all have been flown by heros!

Considering that Poland spent more on its cavalry than its airforce, Polish fighter pilots must have readily realised that they were indeed lions led by donkeys. If one were an aviator in the 1930s, one would have seen or read week on week the advances being made in aviation. September 1939? These poor blighters must have known they were in for a dashed good hiding!

So, there we have it. The PZL P.11.

Think on, and never denigrate any airforce (or nation!) for not having a long innings or flying nasty kites. Tommy, Hank, Fritz, Ivan, Maurice, Roberto, whatever......... at the end of the day, they got aboard and tried, and probably the most important things in
their life were family, football and beer.

Sorry chaps! Going off at a tangent. Conflict between being a pacifist and aviation heritage enthusiast. Bad show!

Anyway........ MB-5, PZL P.11, TTFN (Ta Ta for now!)

Absolutelywoofing

simon

13th April 2003, 00:18

If we're including experimental types, then the MB5 definately also deserves a mention, although it never reached production, and to be honest I've never understood why since in performance and armament it was roughly comparable to the Hurricane MkII and early Typhoons (With the added bonus that it didn't fall appart in mid air!). I guess the MB5 will have to be consigned to the "What if..." bin of History though.

As for the Pzl P.11, I admire and applaud your reasons for choosing it, using the same logic, the Brewster Buffalo must also deserve mentioning, although they were completely outclassed by almost every opponent (Especially the Japanese), the Marine, Navy, RAF, and Finnish pilots that flew them climbed back into their cockpits all the time they could to have a go at a vastly superior enemy.

Your comment about what makes a good fighter set me thinking, personally I would say a mixture of the two. The Japanese early on put a lot of effort into pilot training but never bothered protecting their pilots in the air (No armour, self-sealing tanks, etc), the consequence was that those pilots shot down frequently were unable to learn from their mistakes as they were killed, and the net effect was a reduction in the efficiency of the Japanese fighter force. Equally however it doesn't matter how much protection a fighter offers its pilot, if it's unable to shoot down enemy aircraft then it's pretty much irrelevant (Excluding Photo-recon types here obviously).

On that note, I would like to say that for many pilots on both sides, although possibly excluding the Eastern front where the behaviour of the occupying forces meant that the fighting was altogether more bitter, the war was not about killing the crew in aircraft, it was about stopping aircraft dropping bombs on your own people. Most accounts I've read indicate that fighter pilots would prefer to attack a plane and see the crew bail out, than get any satisfaction from the fact the plane blew up or crashed with no parachutes being seen.

Keep posting, yours is an unusual and welcome viewpoint.

Martiobarbulus

13th April 2003, 19:44

Hi Guys,
Does anybody know why the German fighters were so heavily built if one compares their dimensions? That's why they were less manoeuverable than Yak-3 and La-7, the ultimate dogfighters of the war. If one had lowered Fw 190 D's (My absolute favorite!) TOW to 3,4 - 3,5 tons it could easily have kept up with at least La-7 in a dogfight. Why had the German planes so small rudders and elevators?
Was this a disad e.g. in a dive recovery?
Is it true that the 190 had some aileron difficulties despite its roll rate notoriority?
I hope one of you guys can give some explanations.
BTW, I think W. Messerschmitt was a bad engineer despite his revolutionary concepts: his planes were fragile and hard and unforgiving to fly and quite unmanoeuverable...

Tobz

14th April 2003, 18:52

With respect - you completely sure of your facts? Admitedly, the 109 was an aknowledged SOB to land due to its narrow track and fragile undercart - but that apart... Galland said that due to the leading edge slats, he regarded his 109E as manoeverable as a spit in the turn. He could certainly outdive a Spit as well, and the fuel injection allowed him to pull negative G under power - again, something that a spit couldn't do. As far as I'm aware, one of the main limiting factors regarding manoeverability was the degree of stick deflection which the cramped cockpit allowed - I know thats something that the RAF pilots testing captured examples picked up on. You've also to remember that German aircraft had lots of additional equipement added over their development and that the Soviet types (as well as Japanese) often lacked a lot of refinements in the way of radio, firewalls, dingies etc. - as the design philophy was to get maximum performance often at the expense of pilot comfort or survivability. The Mitsubishi Zero is a good example of a dogfighter designed with this sort of philosophy - although admitidly, far more fragile than Russian designs. Also bear remember that Soviet designs were also built for low-level operations and with ease of production in mind - playing on the Russian philosophy that the air arm was for tactical support of the army and little else.

Simon? ;)

simon

14th April 2003, 23:09

Got to admit that's a new one on me, certainly the Bf110 lacked the manouvrability of a Spitfire or Hurricane, but then a Beaufighter would be out-turned by a Bf109, so that's not really a fair comparison.

Messerschmitt's aircraft were generally pretty well made, in my view. I admit I'm no pilot, but I've not read of any general problems with Messerschmitt aircraft apart from a general fragility with the undercarriage, but the planes themselves didn't exhibit any real problems. If they were that bad then they wouldn't have won out against the Heinkel fighters in the '30s, and the Buchons wouldn't have been in service with the Spanish until the '60s.

Yes, the narrow track undercarriage gave the pilots of 109s problems to say the least, and throughout it's career resulted in hundreds of deaths of inexperienced pilots, but basing the undercarriage on the fuselage allowed Messerschmitt to diversify production quite easily, and this became strategically very important later in the war, the fuselage could be made one place, and the wings somewhere completely different.

As for the FW-190, remember that throughout the war all nations learnt a great deal about air warfare, and few if any nations could afford the luxury of loading their planes with equipment that was not completely necessary, so if you accept that the all the equipment on the FW-190 was more or less essential then the only way to reduce the take off weight to below 3.5t, would be to remove all the ammunition, fuel and the pilot. That's not going to out-dogfight anything! In any case, the servicable Dora-9's could more than "keep up" with contemporary La-7s. Remember as most nations found out, the key to a dogfight is speed, manouevrability is a tie-break between aircraft of equal speed. Before you reply consider this, it that weren't true every nation would have ended the war flying bi-planes and probably even tri-planes.

Personally I haven't actually read of any dogfights between Doras and La-7s since the FW190-Ds only came into service in any real numbers in early 1945 and were largely used as high altitude interceptors against the US daylight bombers, which was their intended role.

The other thing to remember, as Tobz pointed out, the Russian designs were distinctly crude by German standards, they tended to work on strength of numbers rather than superior aircraft, though that is not to say all Soviet aircraft were by definition poor performers. One interesting account I read along these lines was of the German views on captured Il-2M Stormoviks, the Luftwaffe just couldn't believe that these things were allowed into production, their own view was that the RLM wouldn't have even authorised prototypes if they had been offered by a German company.

The differences were that the Russians could afford to lose pilots, so to them it didn't matter, the Luftwaffe couldn't afford to lose pilots. The Japanese equally couldn't afford to lose piltos, so look at what happened to them, all non-essential protection was stripped out of their planes for greater performance, and the result was that by early 1945 the Japanese were more or less reduced to having to crash their planes into ships in order to inflict casualties.

Small rudders and elevators? Not particularly. Compare scale models or plans, they're roughly comparable with conventional aircraft in service with every other airforce, some are slightly smaller, some are slightly bigger, but not significantly.

Sorry it's such a long reply, but I couldn't really come up with a shorter way of answering your comments.

simon

14th April 2003, 23:18

Oh yeah, to Ricky, if you like "Experimentals", especially the wierd and wonderfuls, have a look at www.Luft46.com, the art section is fun as well, the planes themselves range from the futuristic to the simply bizarre!

ace

20th April 2003, 07:06

The Me262 was the finest plane of the war. It came in late, but the damage a squadron of Me262s were capable of should not be underestimated. If they were coming off worse in a dog fight, all they had to do was turn up the throttle and as one American P-51 pilot said, "disappear like shit off a shovel."

They had extremely powerful gunnery in a very good position in which they were able to be put due to a lack of propellers.

The plane's appearance would have also been intimidating to enemies, thinking they would be no match for this modern beast.

The Me262 is my favorite, but I don't think it was the most important. When it came in, even if there were enough resources and trained pilots to operate/maintain the planes, the war was coming to an abvious close and nothing could have been done. It is no good strengthening the biceps with steroids after the arm has been severed.

simon

21st April 2003, 00:48

Me262 was a good interceptor but poor in most other respects, it carried a poor bombload over a fairly short distance. As a dogfighter the Me262 was really pretty bad, it had a poor turn, the 30mm Mk108s carried enough ammunition for only 11 seconds fire on the top two, 9 seconds on the bottom, added to that they were prone to jamming and had a slow rate of fire meaning that in fighter vs fighter combat it was difficult to aim and hit enemy fighters.

Against bombers however this was not a great disadvantage which made the 262 such a good interceptor.

As for fighters, well they could only outrun them if both Jumo 004 jets were working properly which as discussed in other posts down this thread they didn't always, put one out of action or have one fail and what you have is a slow, unmanouevrable plane. And at very low altitudes the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Tempests and Griffin Spitfires were a good match with a bit of an altitude head-start.

Yes, it looked good and modern, so did the He162, Me163 and Bell Airacomet, to name a few, but no-one considers them "Top Fighters", and rightly so.

I still believe much of the Me262's reputation stems from what JV44 under Adolf Galland achieved, but generally the Me262 was about a decade ahead of its time, and a decade ahead of the ability of the Luftwaffe to service or fly it. Outside of JV44 and in the hands of ordinary pilots the plane itself was perhaps a bit more "Above Average" rather than "Excellent"!

I do like your analogy at the end though, and I may have to borrow for use elsewhere, with your permission of course!

I do like the Me262 myself, and in all honesty it has to go down as one of my favourite of the whole war, but I just can't see it as the best, best interceptor (Even taking into account its shortcomings)maybe, but not best overall.

Martiobarbulus

21st April 2003, 09:59

Thanks for your replies, guys
I just now found the time to respond:
As far as I know the Dora-9 wasn´t the high altitude interceptor as many sources claim. Sure it was better than the A-Version at altitude but the Jumo 213A had its maximum at about 7K and that´s not really high alt if compared to some allied fighter types. Dora was basically a medium alt fighter and did not have very much better agility than Anton at low quarters.
La-7 wasn´t much slower than Dora with about 680 KpH, but the Russian fighter had a better max climb rate (24,5 to 22 MpS at sea level) and could turn tighter as it´s much lighter, beside from this the La could deter horizontal pursuit at only 800m altitude by diving what the German planes couldn´t do: Me 109 as well as Fw190 were hard to recover from a dive.
Even Spit pilot used that fact to lure their enemy to crash.
Do you know the Flight Sim Il-2? On the Il-2 webpage the plane profiles quote that La-7 and Yak-3 had absolute combat superiority over the latest German, American and English fighters.
I don´t know how closely it is modeled to reality...?
In fall 1944 LW units were ordered to avoid encounters with Yak-3 below 5000m!
Despite it´s higher wing load Dora turned very well, better than a 109 and at least as good as P-51 and in a turn to the right it almost matches a Spit.
The 109´s supposed successor, the Me 309 was quite a disappointment.
In a mock combat it could only escaped the 109 by means of its superior speed. Handling was really bad and the stick forces too high.
Messerschmitt used the one-spar wing construction, so torsional stiffness was not very good resulting in a low roll rate at speed.
I think the 262 was also hard to handle. Heinkel´s He 280 was a real dogfighter more manvouverable even than a 190. Weaponry was not as good as the 262´s but it was much easier to fly.. too bad it fell victim to political decisions.
Wing vibration was also a problem with some 109 variants.
With about the same empty weight and greater dimensions the Spit was much more rugged....

ace

21st April 2003, 22:57

I agree that the Me262 was difficult to control, and perhaps extremely usefull only as an interceptor, but when it came into the war, this could have been extremely useful, as this was the time of many bombings on Germany.

I am glad personally that Hitler was an idiot not to see the plane's real potential, because I don't think the World would be better under a Swaztika.

Sure you can use that analogy! Heh, just something that came into my head at the moment...

Martiobarbulus

22nd April 2003, 07:53

Hey, don´t take me wrong! I´m also glad that Hitler and his bunch of morons lost the war! It would be a better world if there are no wars at all and thus no need for any weapon systems. It´s just that there is a certain fascination to come from cool looking craft of any kind. It concerns especially the male individuals of our kind with an infantile tendency. Do you like the craft seen in Star Wars...?
Sorry for my bad English.

simon

22nd April 2003, 17:23

OK, let's start off...

Firstly it wasn't autumn 1944 it was after the Luftwaffe met a model of Yak over the battle of Kursk in summer 1943, I can't actually remember the exact model but a book I have at home quotes the wording of the order, as the Doras didn't appear till much later you can't really use this as an example to show that the Yaks could out dog fight an Fw190D-9.

Ignore initial climb, this figure is only usually good for the first few hundred feet, time to a specific altitude is far more useful, and many books will list X minutes/seconds to XX,XXX (Usually 15,000)ft.

I really don't know where you read that the Bf109 was hard to recover in a dive since during the Battle of Britain Luftwaffe pilots in their fuel injection powered Bf109s usually out manouevred Hurricane and Spitfire pilots by out-diving them, not something you'd do if that was effectively a death sentence, and something no BoB RAF pilot would want a Bf109 to do since that would mean they escaped. To be honest I've never read that either the Fw190 (Any model) or Bf109 was hard to recover in a dive.

If the Fw190 really was that bad in a dive and low altitudes, why would it have been developed into the F series ground attack/fighter-bomber/dive-bomber?

Interesting that you should mention the Me309 in the same post since the decision to cancel the latter was made partly because in a flyoff the Dora-9 displayed a marked superiority over it, and was already in service.

Most piston enginned planes displayed better performance at lower altitudes it's true, but the likes of the Dora-9 tended to hold its performance to a higher altitude, that was one of the big advantages of Jets, that they performed roughly as good at altitude as they did a sea level. Interestingly I have also read that the effective ceilings of aircraft tended to be a bit less than the theoretical maximums, for the Hurricane and Spitfire MkIs, despite a maximum of around 35,000ft in theory, in practice they were pretty ineffective above about 25,000ft.

As for Messerschmitt, well yes, the Me309 was a failure, but so were many of the other German projects attempted by other manufacturers, the Ju187 was a complete waste of time and resources, Junkers themselves failed to develop any new effective combat aircraft after 1939, arguably the Ju188 may be an exception. Focke Wulf never got around to giving the Condor the structural strength it needed to operate as a combat aircraft, the result was that many simply fell apart, (If their crews were lucky, this happened on the ground...). Similarly Heinkel failed to develop a single worthwhile fighter until the He219 came along. My point? Well if you're going to say that Messerschmitt was a poor designer because of the failings of one or two of his aircraft, you may as well apply the same logic to the entire German air industry, and that's without even considering any of the still-born Allied or Japanese projects.

The Bf109, actually turned quite well because of the leading edge slats, airlerons and slots.

Finally the He280 is an interesting one, it fell victim to the same politics which nearly killed the Me262 before it even began. What kick started the 262 which didn't the 280 was that there was no requirement for a Jet interceptor when the He280 was being developed. It would have taken a remarkable leap of faith to put all those funds into developing an aircraft that no-one could see any requirement for. How can you say that an aircraft that never proceeded beyond prototype stage was a good dogfighter? With the Do335 Pfiel captured examples were taken to the US and RAF Farnborough and extensively tested against Allied aircraft, so a fair idea of it's capabilities can be guessed at, but the same can't be said for the He280 since after failing to generate any orders the prototypes were stored and eventually destroyed, I believe by Allied bombing.

Sorry about another long reply... :)

simon

22nd April 2003, 19:13

Oh yeah, by the time the Me262 came in it was already too late to save Germany, not enough pilots and mechanics with enough skills to fly them and keep them flying, and not enough skilled technicians in the factories to produce reliable engines.

Good interceptor though, it just might have dragged things out a bit longer, Germany may have even lasted as long as late Summer 1945, but it just wasn't enough to reverse a German military defeat.

A bit further back in the thread there is quite a discussion about the merits or otherwise of the Me262...

Ricky

24th April 2003, 00:50

Wresting the topic back from the beautiful Me262 - although I predict much more discussion about it - how about the Commonwealth Boomerang?
It was developed by the Australians as a rush job after Japan's entry into the war to replace the Commonwealth Wirraway (technically a general duties/light bomber aircraft which was termed a fighter as an emergancy measure. Thankfully it was never needed). The Australians realised that Britain & America had commitments of their own, and would probably not be able to supply them with fighter aircraft for some time. The Boomerang was probably the first aircraft that held its own against the superlative Zero - thanks partly to its manouverability, but mostly to the armament of 2 20mm cannon and 4 machine guns (.30 cal?), which I think made it the most heavily armed Allied fighter in the Pacific at that stage of the war (May 1942). Production did not last much beyond a year, as supplies of other Allied fighters (Wildcat, Hellcat, Mustang, etc) were soon forthcoming.
Boomerangs did continue flying combat missions for most of the war, however, generally being used as fighter-bombers.
[8D]

simon

24th April 2003, 17:17

I believe the Boomerang was intended as an insurance measure incase Australia was isolated from US and British sources of supply by the Japanese (Which prior to the stalemate at Coral Sea looked increasingly likely). CAC (Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation I think, either that or Company) also began designing other aircraft, the Woomera even go as far as the prototype testing stage, but by this point the Aussies had begun manufacturing British aircraft under licence, and the liklihood of a Japanese blockade had receeded.

As for being the most heavily armed Allied fighter in the Pacific, you may be right (2 20mm Hispanos and 4 .303 Brownings), although if Hurricane MkIIcs, P-38 Lightnings or Airacobras were in the Pacific by then they had the heavier armament in each case (Especially any of the P-38s that retained the 37mm Cannon).

I think also that the F4F Wildcat has at least equal claim to being the first aircraft to hold its own against the Zero, dogfights at Midway showed that when they met on roughly equal terms the Wildcat's durability and firepower evened out the Zero's superior speed and manouevrability, especially once US pilots got the hang of the "Thach Weave".

Now to backtrack, to Martiobarbulus, I'm wrong about the directive over the Lavochkins, it was 1944 that came out, my confusion was that apparently it stemmed back to the experiences over Kursk, the instruction to Luftwaffe pilots was to "avoid combat with fighters lacking a chin radiator below 5,000m". [:I]

Bear in mind though that the fastest of the Soviet planes didn't actually reach front line units until after the war ended and so didn't see combat. However, in what we now would call a "Friendly Fire" incident a couple of dogfights did break out over Berlin in the closing stages of the war between US Mustangs and Russian Planes (I'll re-read my sources before I commit myself to which type they were!), and the Mustangs came out the winners in each case. Just going from memory here, but I think the US lost two Mustangs to the Russian's six, this was enough for Stalin to complain to the Americans about their triggerhappy pilots even though the Soviets apparently instigated the combat!

Tobz

24th April 2003, 20:56

Hello Folks...

The Boomerang was an excellent example of improvisation. Its fascinating to see how many types were evolved from the basic Harvard. Annecdotes I have read praised the Boomerang's maneoverability and ruggedness... though whether in actual usage it qualifies as a fighter is a bit debatable - apparently in practice it was more often employed for army cooperation and ground attack. Hmmm... Maybe a separate thread on the best improvisations and 'stop-gaps' of the war? Beaufighter...Boomerang... the Gladiators fitted with Blenhein engines and props which defended Malta... <<ahem>> digressions as usual!

Just want to split a hair with Simons earlier post. The Martin Baker MB5 WAS NOT comparible to the Typhoon or Hurricane II - it was a far far more advanced and capable machine, more in line with the late models of the Spit or Mustang - and in many ways can be viewed as a kind of 'composite' of the design features of the two, with added extras and innovations like the contra-prop. If it had been put into production, it would only have seen action for the last couple of months of the war. However, the pilots who flew it loved it and were very remorseful when it failed to win a production order. A Polish test pilot flew one in an aerobatic routine ('fraid I forget his name - anyone know?) at one of the post war Farnborough displays and it went down as one of the best demonstrations of a piston engined combat type. The cockpit layout influenced a lot of post-war design and the armament layout and fitment for the 4 20mm Hispano was apparently superb. Simes - I think you might be confusing the MB5 with the earlier MB3 which crashed... I think Martin was killed in the accident. That was a diffent design and came earlier (even then, although a contemporary of the Typhoon and Hurricane, still a hell of an advance on either of those). Anyway, hair now split!

My vote goes for the humble Hurri. More Axis planes downed throughout the war than by all the other Allied fighters COMBINED, serving in all theatres and in service from the beginning to the end of the war. That is the closest definition to 'best' in my view

simon

24th April 2003, 21:26

Once more I hang my head in shame, you are correct...

Tobz

24th April 2003, 21:56

Hey! I'm the Nerdiest of the Nerdy... well, not quite, though when aged 12 I had 100 airfix kits dangling from my bedroom ceiling (much to Mother's annoyance, as everytime she tried to dust them, she'd be in trouble as various parts broke off, causing angst! In the end we agreed a truce, and she claimed to visitors that the drapes of cobwebs which innevitably gathered were in fact 'camoflage netting') Besides Mr Simon, you have made some very errudite observations in your postings - and I've got about a seven year headstart on you in the 'airhead' stakes. ;)

If we're talking about favourite weird and experimental fighters, what about the steam-cooled Kestrel engined (I think) canard type - I think it was by Hill and flew in the late 30's, something called the Pterodactyl if memory serves me well. It was an odd and revolutionary looking thing with twin guns forward and two facing to the rear in a turret.

I liked the earlier posting about the PZL 11. They did surprisingly well in combat - a testiment to the pilots who flew them. We all tend to forget how much of a sacrifice the Poles made in WW2. Escaped Polish made up a significant percentage of the RAF (in fact we may well not have made it through the Battle of Britain without them) and fielded the fourth largest allied army post D-Day... all that bravery and sacrifice to liberate their homeland only to end up with it being taken over by the Russians. Buy the next Pole you meet a drink and toast his Grandparents I say.

simon

24th April 2003, 22:25

Going off topic a bit, I too fought a constant battle against my mother over dusting my planes. The worst bit was when she tried to fix a damaged model (Ship or Plane) herself! I can remember being about 10 and telling her off because she'd glued the Tirpitz's bridge back on, which was thoughtful, except she'd put it on upside down!

As for the Poles, we should also remember that without them we would not have had Enigma, so a valuable (Possibly vital?) supply of intelligence would have been completely unavailable throughout the war. To anyone out there who has seen it and doesn't realise, sorry guys, but "U-571" is basically fiction.

The Polish and Czech Pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain did say with a bravery and aggression which surprised even the British pilots (I've recently finished reading a book where one RAF pilot describes having to guard a downed German airman being looked after in the Mess awaiting the arrival of the MPs, not aginst him escaping, but because they worried that if they were left alone the two Poles in the Squadron would lynch him).

The Polish pilot you're thinking about I believe is Zurokowski (Not too sure on the spelling, but I hope I got it right), he's still around (I think), although getting on a bit now, last year "Flypast" did a two or three part special on him and his achievements including a special aerobatic manouevre which was named after the pilot and became known as the "Zurobatic Turn". :D

You might be able to get ahold of the back issues, if they're still available.

Tobz

24th April 2003, 22:39

Ahaha! Zurukowski (dunno about the spelling either!) yes - wow. Here's a coincidence. Back in a previous incarnation I was a film archivist and assistant producer for an aviation documentary company (called Wingspan - some of their productions are still airing on History and Discovery I think). Anyway, we patched up and transfered a load of gun camera film for the Polish Institute in London. There was a fair batch labelled Zurukowski - and one of the chaps from the institute was really interested to see them, becasue apparently there were some 'disputed' kills that if confirmed based on new evidence, could proove that he was one of the leading allied ace's of the war. Taglia, where does he feature in your list of aces I wonder? I remember being told that Zurukowski was still alive and living in Canada... that was going back about five years now. I recollect that a lot of the gun camera footage was of Mustangs straffing stuff in what looked like France. There was an awesome shot of a real treetop engagement of a 190 which put down in a field before blowing up - the Mustang behind flying right through the resulting fireball. Really scary stuff to see the footage 'in the raw' and realise that you were witnessing life and death as it happened. OOops digressing off the thread again. Sorry Admin!

Ricardo1174

25th April 2003, 02:11

Hi.

I agree that the me262 was not the best WWII fighter, it was put into service merely as an interceptor rather than a fighter or a fighter/bomber (this last role was a complete failure in my opinion)....in dogfights it has some shortcomings that place the 262 in disadvantage, for example lack of manoeuvreability and range, but it has at least 100 miles/h over the fastest allied fighter in service and a good acceleration at high altitude as well....this point makes a balance. It is the same to compare a P-38 vs Zero in the Pacific theatre: The Lightning was much faster, but much less manoeuverable than the Zero. The P-38's pilots were told not to engage long dogfights against Zeroes. Normally the fastest fighter has the chance to climb out and escape from enemy fighter if the dogfight turns in disadvantage for them, but in the other hand enemy fighters had almost no chance to escape from the 262.

note: sorry, I have to practice my english a little bit more.[:I]

simon

25th April 2003, 17:01

Generally I believe fighter pilots tended to try and dive away from trouble unless their aircraft had greatly superior climb since climbing meant that they slowed down, and if there were an enemy fighters flying "top cover" they would now find themselves slower and outnumbered.

It wasn't just a poor turn which made the Me262 bad in Fighter Vs Fighter, but also the armament which was designed to shoot down bombers. The 30mm Mk108s had a relatively slow muzzle velocity and rate of fire making it hard to aim and hit. Against a B-17 or B-24 this wasn't a significant disadvantage, but against something small and nimble like a Spitfire or Mustang... I think this in part is why a number of 262s had one pair of Mk108s replaced by Mg151/20s.

The comparisson with the Lightning and Zero is a good point, and almost to the end the Japanese, in particular the Japanese Navy, favoured manouevrability over almost every other consideration when designing new planes which is one reason they became so outclassed. In the latter case the Lightning had good weaponry for fighter vs fighter combat, even the few that retained the 37mm cannon still had 4 .50 calibur Machine Guns which were more than ample to take down a Zero, most Lightnings by this point had the 20mm cannon instead and these were even more capable against other fighters.

Note: Don't apologise for your English, your English is far better than my Portugese will ever be (In fact your English is better than a lot of English people's!).

Ricky

25th April 2003, 19:24

Ah yes, the P-38, the 'Forked Devil'.
Most unusual in being a twin-engined fighter that was able to hold its own against (and often surpass) most single-engined fighters. Admittedly planes like the Beaufighter & Mosquito could handle themselves, but you would not go looking for trouble in them - and most twin-engined fighters (like the Messerschmitt Bf 110) proved very vulnerable to their more nimble and usually faster single-engined adversaries.

P.S - thanks for the advice re: dusting. I once made the mistake of washing an unvarnished model in hot soapy water (hey, I was only 10!) and lost all the decals...

;)

simon

25th April 2003, 20:23

Only in the Pacific, in Europe it was less successful as a fighter because it did not enjoy quite such an advantage in speed and protection over its Luftwaffe counterparts, however I've read of more than one 8th AAF Lightning pilot who was glad to have had a second engine to get home on after the first one took a bullet or shell.

I think another reason for the relative lack of success was that a lot of the fighting in Europe took place over 15,000 ft where the Alison engines really lost their power, in the Pacific I believe it was a bit lower down.

On the other hand the Lightning was the only fighter available to the US in Europe with any worthwhile range prior to the introduction of usable drop tanks and, of course the Mustang, so for a while at least it filled a vital gap.

Very good as a fighter-bomber though, but probably the greatest claim to fame for the Lightning was the Yamamoto Assassination. :)

Tobz

25th April 2003, 22:19

I'm a big fan of the twin-engined fighters, as they seem to get so little in depth coverage. I've read planty of articles comparing the relative merits of the single engined fighters, and we can source lots of annecdotes comparing their relative merits, strengths and weaknesses etc, with lots of examples of how they shaped up against each other in combat. Does anyone know of equivalent sites or info/stats for the twins? I'm guessing that axis and allied twins came up against each other on plenty of occasions - from the mediterranean through to the pacific. The main types are likely to be Bf110, JU88 ME 210 and 410, Whirlwind, Mosquito, Beaufighters, Blenheim iv, Douglas Havoc, P38 Lightning, Italian long rang fighters (Cant?) and Japanese (can't remember!)... I'd love to know how they compared in terms of sustained turn, climb and maneouverability. Speed and firepower can be deduced from the official stats but I'd love to read some actual combat annecdotes. Anyone any links or clues? Could a Beaufighter turn with a BF110? that sort of thing...

Ricky

26th April 2003, 00:29

I have read an article in an aviation magazine in which an RAF pilot flew a captured Ju88 nightfighter in a mock dogfight against a Mosquito nightfighter, and apparently managed to consitantly out-turn the Mossie. However, he lost the dogfight, as he had never flown a Ju88 before, and was too scared to really throw it about.

preb

27th April 2003, 02:56

there is nothing that could beat the messersmitt 262a. it has speed durability and flies like a bird

Ricardo1174

27th April 2003, 07:37

Hi....

Thanks Simon for your attention and your last words (really, thank you very much).

Tobz....now that I know that you love twin-engine fighters, right now I'm trying to find out about Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer's Bf110G-4. I bought a couple of days ago a PRO MODELER Bf110G-4 and I was looking for reviews related to this kit....well, according to PRO MODELER's page they say that this kit includes markings for Schnaufer's Bf110....The werk number is 730066 and the code on it's sides are C9+IV (NJG 5)... do you think they are right?

simon

28th April 2003, 18:06

For the merits or otherwise of the Me262, there is a good discussion a bit further down the thread, it certainly had speed, but as for durability... Anyway there were planes that could and did beat the Me262, notably the Griffon Spitfires, Thunderbolts, Mustangs, Typhoons and Tempests.

As for what Ricky says about the Ju88 vs Mossie kind of reminds me of something I read in Len Deighton's book "Fighter" (If you haven't read it, it's a bit dated now, but it's still a pretty good account of the Battle of Britain). Comparing the Spitfire MkI and Messerschmitt Bf109E he noted that most accounts differed over which plane had the better manouevrability. He came to the conclusion that technically, all other things being equal, the Bf109 could out manouevre a Spitfire, but only if the Pilot was willing to or able to push himself and his aircraft to the limit.

As the Spitfires were operating over home territory, they did so knowing that if they crashed they could be easily returned to their unit, the Luftwaffe pilots were slightly less willing to push their planes to the limit, as a mistake for them could mean an uncertain future as a POW, or possibly a lynching at the hands of an angry civilian mob.

A lot depended on the pilot since most airframes were stressed to take far greater forces than the pilots themselves could, which as an aside is one reason, supposedly why Douglas Bader was such a good pilot, with no legs there was nowhere for the blood to go in a high G manouevre so where a full bodied pilot would black out, he remained fully conscious. This was also why later in the war the Luftwaffe increasingly experimented with placing pilots in prone positions since not only were they reckoned to be less likely to be hit in combat, a prone body is better able to resist the effects of G-Forces.

For Ricardo try asking at the Warbirds Resource Group, Discussions, then Luftwaffe Discussions, there are people there that really know their stuff, but even if they can't help you there is another specialised Luftwaffe website that they can point you to where you may get more info. Good Luck!

simon

28th April 2003, 18:40

Although I wouldn't suggest it could be considered the best fighter, what about the Boulton Paul Defiant? OK it was a disaster as a day fighter, but equipped with AI radar it formed the nucleus of Britain's night fighter force until more modern types became operational, and built an enviable reputation for itself, whilst filling a vital gap in Britain's air defences.

The forgotten hero of the Blitz?

Ricky

28th April 2003, 20:41

Yes, of course...

Didn't Defiants also do a lot of the early work in the 'Battle of the Beams'?

There is also their early successes against the Bf109s to consider, although that only lasted until the Germans worked out not to approach from behind!

Tobz

28th April 2003, 20:55

Yup - a good contender there for 'forgotten hero'. I think the Defiant also rasies all sorts of other interesting 'what ifs'. It seems that the basic concept of the twin seater fighter had been proved by the success of the Bristol Fighter in WW1...and that was one of the basis for the design spec... but the lesson which had been learnt in WW1 was that rather than flying the aircraft as a twin seater per se, and allowing the rear gunner to act as the main offensive force, if the Bristol was flown as a single seater, ie as its forward firing gun the 'main armament', it soon racked up an impressive performance. In one of its first actions, Bristols were flown using the old 'twin' concept and nearly the entire squadron was shot down (including Leif Robinson of Zeppelin fame I beleive) ... it makes me wonder if in fact the Defiant was mainly a victim of the lack of forward firing guns. Obviously, lugging around a ton of turret meant that with its wing loadings well up it was never going to be able to cut it against ME109's in sheer speed, roll or turn. The location of its main weaponry also meant that the pilot had to keep trying to manoevre his aircraft with his gunners sight lines in mind - which must have been like trying to rub your stomach whilst patting your head. Biggest dissadvantage was that they couldn't be traversed to fire dead ahead. If he'd even had so much as a modest couple of front firing guns on which to concentrate his efforts, I can't help wondering if they might have done a lot better in daylight actions. The tactics which prevailed for the Bristol was that despite it not being in the first flight regarding speed or manoeverability, if flown aggressively, the rear gunner meant that opposition trying to get on the Bristols six involved staring down the barrels of two lewis guns.

On another note, one of the successes of the Defiant night fighter was that the turret guns meant that the pilot could fly up underneath the bomber, silhoetting it against the night sky and stars (much easier than a stern attack) and also meaning that the gunner could riddle an engine or the fuel tanks with tracerless rounds before the German pilot was even aware what was happening. Schrage music involed basically the same tactics. Did the Germans learn from the Defiant experience?

Its also interesting to note that the Defiant was regarded as a delight to fly if a little sluggish. At the hight of the Battle of Britain, when it appeared that supplies of Hurricanes and Spits might run out, Boulton Paul proposed a Defiant version with foward firing guns. Divested of the weight and drag of the turret, one wonders what sort of performer it might have been...[?]

simon

28th April 2003, 21:18

I think the Defiant had two or maybe three successful combat sorties during the Dunkirk evacuations, after that their lack of speed, manouevrability or fire power meant they were slaughtered by day, and the two squadrons were only saved from complete annihilation by the chance intervention of some patrolling Spitfires.

The problem with the Defiant's design was that it stemmed from the WWI where speed wasn't that critical, great improvements in the speed of combat aircraft didn't really happen until the 1930s. The idea was sound, by dividing the gunnery and flying into two separate roles, you allow the pilot to concentrate on flying and the gunner to concentrate on shooting, in theory each should then be better in their relevant role. In practice the vital split second decisions that a single seater pilot could make when in combat were absent and pilot and gunner had to a degree to guess what each other were thinking.

The other problem was the Defiant was never designed to take on fighters, it was a bomber destroyer, and that was it. Somehow the idea that the enemy force may include fighters seems to have eluded the designers.

As for forward firing armament making a vast difference, it probably wouldn't have. You've got a heavy fighter with the speed of a Stuka and the manouevrability roughly of a Bf110. They still would have been shot down in large numbers, possibly even more so as the additional weight of more guns and ammunition slowed the plane down.

Defiant's could shoot almost directly ahead, although the gunner could only fire when his guns were clear of the propellor disk, so it was a sort of 12 slightly high angle.

Without the turret it probably would have been a comparable performer to the Hurricane, same engine and a similar airframe, although with the latter already in service and proving popular with pilots and ground crew unless it could offer any serious advantages it would probably have been withdrawn and sent to training squadrons in order to ease production.

Ricky

29th April 2003, 00:52

A Defiant without a turret...

The only turreted / non-turreted 'fighter' that I know of was the Blackburn ROC / Skua, a carrier-based fighter/dive-bomber. The ROC (turreted version) proved apalling, and I don't think it was ever used operationally. The Skua (turretless, but still a 2-seater) was not too hot as a fighter (only to be expected when it is also a dive-bomber!) but was an effective dive-bomber - coincidently, see the 'campaigns' thread. However, it did not serve for very long.

Hmm... not really a terribly valid comparison.

Still, without a turret the Defiant would probably have been (as Simon said - no pun intended) somewhere around the performance of a Hurri. However, this could have been potentially useful, as at one point during the Battle of Britain the Brit's need for fighter aircraft became so urgent that Miles created what was basically an 'identikit' fighter, composed mostly of bits of other aircraft, which was allegedly comparable in performance to the Spitfire / Hurricane, but with twice the ammunition & fuel capacity. Regrettably I cannot off-hand remember the designation.
If that kind of measure was being taken seriously, then converted Defiants could have been very useful.

simon

29th April 2003, 03:27

The best use for the Roc was during the Battle of Britain when a couple were used parked with only their turrets manned at Gosport, near Southampton, they were improvised A-A guns!

It was always my understanding that thanks to a largely ineffective attempt at strategic bombing by the Luftwaffe and the efforts of Beaverbrook the RAF was never short of fighters, either Spitfires or Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, in fact it was only very briefly that losses exceeded deliveries.

The requests for aluminium from the public were just a publicity stunt designed to boost civilian morale and make them feel they were doing something to help.

The most serious problems (In order) were the critical pilot shortages, and the rate at which 11 group's vital airfields, especially the sector airfields were being repeatedly knocked out of commission at the height of the Battle.

I thought that the likes of the Miles Aircraft were intended as insurance measures, a sort of "Just incase..." rather than stemming from any actual need for more fighters, both Bristol and de Havilland had been working on their own private projects which matured into the Beaufighter and Mosquito from a similar almost clairvoyant appreciation of the forthcoming need for heavy/strike fighters and fast bombers.

Ricky

29th April 2003, 18:44

Yes, it was more a percieved need for airframes, rather than an actual shortage...
;)

Here we are, the Miles M.20, made mostly from the Miles Magister, with a Merlin XX taken straight from the Lancaster / Halifax and a fixed undercarriage to allow for greater ammo storage, and a 'bubble' canopy for all-round visibility. It apparently could achieve ~350mph.

The only prototype was written off in a crash landing.

simon

29th April 2003, 21:47

I'm going from memory here, but didn't the M.20 carry 12 Browning .303s at a time when contemporary Hurricanes and Spitfires had 8?

It seems odd that there was so little official interest in the Miles combat aircraft as most of them had at least respectable performances, and were apparently liked by their test pilots, but failed to get any orders.

Does anybody know if there's any real reason behind this, the M.20 I can understand to a degree as, fortunately the supply of aircraft never grew that desperate. Was there some kind of official antipathy to the Miles company (Like the sort of political attitudes that killed off the Focke Wulfe Fw187 Falke), or was it just a case that their planes were good, but not special enough to justify upsetting everything?

Ricky

29th April 2003, 23:23

Your memory is spot on, the M.20 did carry 12 machine guns.
I don't know of any 'political' reason for the relative lack of Miles combat plane orders - their trainers, target tugs & communications aircraft were widely used by the RAF throughout the war. Actually, beyond the M.20, the only 'combat' aircraft that Miles made to the best of my memory was a prototype tail-less design with forward canard , which was intended to be a heavy bomber, but predictably never got beyond the prototype stage. I think it was the M.39 or something like that.

simon

2nd May 2003, 03:10

Apart from the M.20, and I think the M.39, there was also the MB.3 and the MB.5, all of which despite being quite well liked by test pilots failed to achieve any orders beyond a prototype stage.

The canard type was developed in two forms, one intended to be a fighter and the other intended, as you say to be developed into a heavy bomber, but despite the advantages of the layout (Crew in nose and engines in rear meant a potentially huge bomb-bay), serious instability problems were never cured and prototypes were written off, I believe in landing accidents (Actually I'm pretty sure one was damaged by another plane crash landing and hitting it!).

I'm going from memory here, so treat this with a pinch of salt and please excuse any errors.

You're right of course, Miles did build a huge number of very vital training aircraft without which the RAF could not have survived, but to my knowledge never had a single successful combat aircraft, in spite of a few promising designs,

simon

3rd May 2003, 17:06

OK, I made a very elimentary mistake here, and forgot to actually re-read any of my sources, of course the MB.3 and MB.5 were not in fact made by Miles, but were made by Martin Baker, as there initials suggest and as was mentioned in other posts further down the thread.

[:I]

So that leaves us with the M.20, which by the time it would have been reaching service units in any numbers would have been facing the Bf109F Series and the first batches of FW190As, and the two canard tandem wing planes, which were more concept aircraft than actually prototypes as such. All things considered, not surprising that there weren't any orders.

That will teach me to double check what I intend to post, before I actually write it!

Martiobarbulus

13th May 2003, 06:11

Does anybody know why the tail wheels of german fighters were so large inducing more drag and adding weight? The later production models featured ever bigger main and tail wheels due to the increased weights and landing speeds. If you look at some allied counterparts that were heavier but featured smaller wheels...
Why did the Germans prefer designs with such high wing loading? Do smaller wings have so much more advantages e.g. "Wendigkeit" (agility). But this certainly does not refer to sustained turn rates.

simon

13th May 2003, 16:55

Not sure entirely what you mean here... again the tails of German aircraft in general, including the tail wheels were not significantly larger, if at all than those of Allied, Italian or Japanese aircraft, and the final production Bf109s, the "K" series, featured a retractable tail wheel.

Also German designers didn't particularly favour high wing loading and more than any other nation apart from the Japanese who prized agility over every other consideration up untill about 1944. The reason is that a tight turn doesn't necessarily make a good fighter, again as the Japanese found, although it is a good tie break between aircraft of otherwise equal performance, speed is generally far more crucial. This is why generally Lightnings and Warhawks out fought the Zeroes and Oscars they faced.

Shorter wings mean an improved roll rate and this in turn means that an aircraft can generally go into a high G turn quicker, especially at lower altitudes, this is why you get the "Clipped Wing" Spitfires. However a smaller wing area also generally means a poorer performance at altitude and much poorer ceiling, so many Spitfires retained the full size wings for higher and medium altitude combat.

The Luftwaffe in general had a fair mix of fighter aircraft toward the end, and infact they were increasingly concentrating on high altitude interceptors, i.e. the Ta152H, and a number of aircraft that were prototype or drawing board exercises were mainly intended as altitude fighters including the admittedly disappointing Me309, but also there was a Messerschmitt/Blohm & Voss plane that started life as a carrier dive bomber for the KMS Graf Zeppelin.

Out of interest why do you think the Luftwaffe planes have particularly small tail surfaces and large tail wheels? Comparing pictures, plans and scale models, there really is nothing remarkable either way about the tails of German planes.

lucycat11758

24th May 2003, 12:18

You all are talking about the best fighters and no one mentioned the F4U CORSAIR !!!! It won the war in the pacific theater. And why are there only guys in this site?

Ricky

27th May 2003, 22:25

I'm sure someone has mentioned the Corsair...

It was arguably (well, I think it was definately) the best American carrier-based fighter of the war.
Odd-looking, but great!

And as to the male-female ratio, well, I suppose war & aircraft and all that is largely a 'guy' thing. No offence meant. I did a few courses in Military History while at university, and they were almost exclusively male-subscribed.

But anyway, please do not be put off!

:D

Tobz

28th May 2003, 22:26

Coo!

Controversy just around the corner... I think you just lit blue-touchpaper behind the tails of all of those who reckoned that the Hellcat was the best allied carrier fighter of the war...?!

Well LucyCat, I think tha its just that men seem to have a more than the usual dose of fixation when it comes to mechanical objects. However, its good to know that its not exclusively our sex which has been afflicetd by this addiction. Welcome to our help group!

Ricky

28th May 2003, 23:17

Hmm, well, the Hellcat was good, but by the time it appeared in any numbers the standard of Japanese pilots and maintenance had declined, so that it is quite hard to predict just how well the Hellcat would have fought against top-notch opposition. Whereas there is no doubting the Corsair's record. I do remember (and I think I have already used this story) that near the end of the war, a Japanese ace in an old-model Zero dogfighted several (possibly 6?) Hellcats and emerged unscathed - not even a bullethole.

I seem to be having a 'let's start an argument (ahem - debate!)' mood...

[:p]

lucycat11758

29th May 2003, 04:44

Hi, again. Thank you so much for welcoming me into this all male dicussion group. I hope to start some good debates and challenge all you BOYS!! I have to say I have a soft spot for the CORSAIR. It is my favorite fighter of all times. The HELLCAT is so similiar, except for looks of course. The HELLCAT is known as the fighter that defeated the japanese so I'll have to give it some credit and after all it was built a few miles from my home. What about the P-38 Lightening? It is a fighter/bomber. Most P-38's escorted bombers. They were really excellant long range because of the extra fuel it carried under the inner wings. It's odd looking too! I must be attracted to that sort of thing. (Ha Ha) It's speed was 395 mph. That's 15 more mph than the Mosquito! The P-38 also won the first american victory over the Luftwaffe and shot down more Japanese aircraft in the pacific than any other U.S. fighter. With a max speed of 414 mph and a range of 450 miles HOW CAN YOU GO WRONG!

Mandrake

1st June 2003, 07:49

"In your opinion, what's the best fighter during WW2?"
How many times has this question been asked since the end of WW2.Putting your nationlistic pride to oneside,it`s a hard one to call.
If Chuck Yeager claimes the P-51 is the best,Well i`m not qualified to dispute him.On paper you have to go with the Me262.
For some reason the late MK Spits always get overlooked.These beauties,correctly handled,were superior to any other prop plane in a dogfight situation.
But the best piston engine aircraft of WW2, is the Mossie.
The ultimate production piston aircraft was i think, The beautiful De Havilland Hornet.This aircraft all but forgotten about in the pages of time.

simon

6th June 2003, 18:35

I think the reason the Hellcat is known as the fighter that defeated the Japanese was because of the sheer number of enemy aircraft shot down by Hellcats.

What about the Hellcat's predecessor though, the humble Wildcat? The F4F bore the brunt of the very best the Japanese had to offer, including the elite of the 1st Carrier Division at Midway, and whilst Wildcat pilots might not have always come out on top, once they'd learnt a few tricks they were able to acquit themselves well. Given the achievements of the admittedly inferior Wildcat, I reckon you can quite confidently say that even against an early 1942 standard Japanese Navy the Hellcat would have performed well.

As for the Lightning, well... As already mentioned, it's performance really dropped off at altitude, and higher up it was definately not comparable to the Mossie. And actually it's reputation for incredible range was mainly because of the huge drop tanks it carried, without them it's range is not actually all that impressive, especially when you consider that the first thing fighter pilots tended to do in a dogfight was to ditch their drop tanks.

I can remember the tale of the Zero pilot as well, if I remember correctly he was one of Japan's top aces (Can't remember his name) and was flying the A6M2 which is arguably the definitive Zero. Later versions mainly differed in armament and armour, and because of the increase in weight the improved engines didn't really increase performance. The result was a fighter that was not much faster than it's early version, and significantly less nimble as well.

I wont even mention the Me262 since I don't want to repeat what I've already said about it... definitely agree about the later Griffin Spitfires, though.

Anyways, sorry for a sort of blanket reply to everyone, and welcome onboard Lucycat (wasn't ignoring you, honest!), and of course Mandrake as well.

simon

2nd July 2003, 16:33

Just been re-reading one of my books, and a former Luftwaffe pilot General Krupinski, said that he flew every model of the Bf109 from the "B" to the "K", the FW190 (Both versions, although he preferred the 109), the Me262, and captured versions of the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire (Although he doesn't say which mark), and he said catagorically that of the piston engined types the Spitfire was the best.

Ring

9th July 2003, 05:46

BUt even though the spit was "one"of the best fighters...It also had some limitations.(which all aircraft have) the lack of ammunition and low clime rate are just a few...Now an LA-5N I believe was one of the most under rated fighter in the war....although that is just my humble opinion...Ring

simon

9th July 2003, 16:01

Later Spitfires were not particularly lacking in ammunition, 15 seconds for their Mgs and 12 seconds for their Cannon, as the fire could be split between weapons giving a potential maximum of 27 seconds. The La5FN carried a total of 14 seconds for its cannon, and had no Mgs to back these up in its standard configuration.

I don't think the La5 is particularly under-rated, it just tends to be overlooked, especially in the West.

simon

11th July 2003, 06:39

Actually, neither did later Spits particularly have a poor climb. In all fairness to compare a MkI Spitfire to a Mustang and say "There, the Mustang is better" is about as fair as comparing a MkXIV Spitfire (Big difference between the two!) with a P-36 and saying that no Curtiss hawk was worth the metal it was made of!

Paul T Horgan

8th August 2003, 23:17

Paul T Horgan

8th August 2003, 23:27

quote:Originally posted by simon

OK, I made a very elimentary mistake here, and forgot to actually re-read any of my sources, of course the MB.3 and MB.5 were not in fact made by Miles, but were made by Martin Baker, as there initials suggest and as was mentioned in other posts further down the thread.

[:I]

So that leaves us with the M.20, which by the time it would have been reaching service units in any numbers would have been facing the Bf109F Series and the first batches of FW190As, and the two canard tandem wing planes, which were more concept aircraft than actually prototypes as such. All things considered, not surprising that there weren't any orders.

That will teach me to double check what I intend to post, before I actually write it!

Hello there,

I think that the reason that the M.20 was not proceeded with was that Churchill's appointment of Lord Beaverbrook as Minister of Aircraft Production was a success and allowed British fighter production to out-produce Germany by a factor of two-to-one. Put simply, there were enough fighters available for battle without the M.20. It was useful as an insurance policy against Beaverbrook failing to eliminate bottlenecks in the production of Spitfires and Hurricanes. The key to the M.20 was simplicity of production and use of non-strategic materials. When the M.20 was first proposed in June 1940, no-one knew if it would be needed. As it turned out, it wasn't.

This ability to cancel projects was an Allied strength which the Germans did not have and may explain why they had so many weird and wonderful designs running in parallel, few of which came to fruition instead of focussing on what was actually needed and also why the obsolete Me-109 design persisted until 1945 when it should have been retired at least 2 years earlier.

simon

9th August 2003, 07:28

Once again going to have to split hairs here but the Spanish built Buchons were being built into the late 1940s, well after the end of the second world war, and in fact were in Spanish service well into the jet age. The Buchon was essentially a Messerschmitt Bf109G series airframe with a licence built Merlin engine, and was originally planned as the Bf109H with a licence built Daimler Benz engine.

For the record the first three Messerschmitt planes (Bf108, 109 and 110) were designated Bf (For Bayerisch Flugzeugwerk) rather than Me, only later planes were given the "Me" designation rather like only very late Focke Wulf planes were creditted to Kurt Tank, the designer, and given a "Ta" designation.

Otherwise you're perfectly right of course, the great stength of the US specifically was the ability to persue many different projects, Germany did not have that luxury so many of the projects they chose to persue, for example the V-1, V-2, Me262 as a "Blitz-bomber", and Me163 turned out to be failures.

As for the Bf109, one thing that is forgotten is that Messerschmitt designed it so that production could easily be dispersed. OK this led to the famously weak wing structure and poor undercarriage, however at a fundamental level it meant that the airframe could be produced in one factory, the wings in another, the engine another and the armament in another still. This was a key reason why German aircraft production actually rose during the worst of the Allied bombing, production was easily decentralised, and a possible reason why the Bf109 was kept in production past its "sell-by" date.

P.S. Actually I just found out that the Spanish finished building the last Buchon in 1956!

Ricardo1174

10th August 2003, 00:08

Hi everybody....I haven't visited this forum for a long time. I just want to recommend the last magazine august 2003 FLIGHT JOURNAL, where they pick the top 7 fighters of WWII (very interesting to start a debate).

I don't know who is able to confirm something that I read on "MESSERSCHMITT BF109 IN ACTION PART 1 (aircraft No.44)" where they mention about BoB losses RAF = 631 hurricanes and 403 spitfires....LUFTWAFFE = 610 Bf109s, 235 Bf110s and the remain of the 1800s where bombers (ratio 3-2 in favor of RAF).

...BUT in addition I found that in fighter vs fighter the Bf109 came out the winner....the results are (according to Squadron/signal publications):

219 spitfires vs 180 Bf 109s
272 hurricanes vs 153 Bf109s

I also found a couple of months ago a similar information on :

http://members.tripod.com/Rush_9/OoBob1.htm

Greetings....Ricardo

simon

10th August 2003, 00:33

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statisitics.

Don't forget that the RAF pilots c.1940 were very poorly trained and inexperienced, whereas the Luftwaffe pilots of the same time were highly trained seasoned veterans, this does not come through in the statistics, and the statistics are not entirely a good reflection of the capabilities of the aircraft.

Also remember that the job of the Spitfire and Hurricane pilots in summer 1940 was to shoot down Luftwaffe bombers, not fighters, the Bf109 pilots did not have that distraction, their job was to shoot down Hurricanes and Spitfires. There wasn't really fighter on fighter scraps, it was more like fighter on fighter on bomber!

Finally the RAF pilots, fighting over home turf could afford to take a few more risks since if they were shot down, well they just had to walk to the nearest police station and get a lift to their base. For the Luftwaffe Pilots making sure you could get back to France was the difference between potentially a long and illustrious career or 6 years of annonymity in a POW camp, so saving their aircraft was far more important for the Bf109 pilots.

simon

11th August 2003, 04:04

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that you were lying, just that statistics taken out of context are not always all that useful.

Ricky

12th August 2003, 20:11

Further to Simon's list:

1) Many RAF fighter sqadrons were still using the dangerously outdated and inflexible 'fighting area attacks' and flying in three-plane 'vic' formations, both of which are ok (ish) against bomber formations, but sheer murder against enemy fighter escorts.

2) The German fighters (Bf 109 & 110) can be said to have superior armaments to the the RAF Spits & Hurris. 20mm cannon vs .303in machine gun. Which is the better armament? Now there's a topic...

I know it sounds like I'm just making excuses - because I am!

[:p]

simon

12th August 2003, 20:27

In terms of weight of fire the Bf109E-4 with two 20mm MG-FF in the wings and two 7.92mm MGs in the nose was the same as both the Hurricane and Spitfire with eight .303 inch Brownings in the wing.

Weight of fire taken in the total weight of projectiles for a one second burst. Again this isn't entirely useful because so many other factors affect the effectiveness of an aircraft's firepower, convergence ranges for wing weapons, the aircraft's stability as a gunnery platform, etc...

The Bf110C-4 with a fixed forward firing battery of two 20mm cannon and four 7.92mm MGs, all in the nose delivered a much more concentrated punch, the difficulty for Bf110 pilots was getting anyone in their gunnery arc for long enough to hit them!

Ricky

13th August 2003, 21:58

However, 20mm cannon had a longer effective range than the machine guns.

Also, a hit from a cannon shell would generally be more disasterous than a hit from an equivalent weight of bullets, due to the explosive nature of cannon shells.

Early on in the war (Battle of France, early Battle of Britain) Bf 110's scored many a victory by staying at fairly long range and blasting away with their cannon at RAF Hurricanes.

As a good arguament, the RAF rapidly introduced cannon armament for its own fighters, and these were gratefully recieved by the pilots.
Although I think I'm right in recalling that Douglas Bader refused them, preferring the alternative 12 mg option...

simon

13th August 2003, 22:28

Douglas Bader wasn't alone many RAF pilots preferred the 8 machine guns (Bader flew Spitfires from the MkI to the MkVA, and it was in the latter he refused the Cannon armament in preference to the machine guns). The only contemporary aircraft to the MkV with 12 MGs were the Hurricane MkIIB and the Typhoon MkIA, neither of which were flown by Bader to my knowledge. This preference probably down to the unreliable nature of the early RAF Hispano MkIIs, the Hispano only became an effective weapon when its reliability issues were sorted out.

As for the Germans, the MG-FF was actually a poor weapon. Against the more nimble fighters the combination of a low muzzle velocity and slow rate of fire meant that it was very difficult to aim at a fighter, additionally the low muzzle velocity meant that the shells tended to explode on impact, so rather than damaging the plane as such it just stripped off sections of the skin leaving the structure and vital components intact, the bullets instead would pass through and hit whatever was underneath. If the MG-FF was so good the Germans would not have developed the MG151/20 as a replacement.

Also the issue of range is often quoted, however the range of ALL weapons in 1940 far exceeded the abilities of pilots and gunners to aim at the target, the effective range of all weapons was a maximum of about 400 yards because this was as far as the pilots could actually see.

In all honesty I think that in terms of armament the Bf109E-4, Spitfire and Hurricane were evenly matched, especially when you consider that the Bf109E-4 only had 6 seconds of ammunition for its Cannon, after that it was down to only 2 machine guns. The Spitfire "B" armament configuration was better since it had a far higher weight of fire, infact it was double that of the MkVB's contemporary the Bf109F-2, and at least had some more back up once the Cannon ran dry.

Corsarius

15th August 2003, 19:50

Hi Everyone! I'm quite impressed with your forum here.

Time to stick in my oar, I guess.

There are FAR too many fantastic planes to choose from, even at the end of the war. It all depends on what you want to do, and how you want to do it.

For simple interception, I would choose the ME-163
For top cover fighting, the TA-152H
For ground attack, the Tempest
For lower level fighting, the La5-series
For multirole fighting, the mosquito
For night-fighting, the HE-219 UHU, or P-61 Black widow
For light bombing that is absolutely COOL I would choose the Nakajima Kikka (OK, so it's not a fighter, but it was a bomber with fighter performance)http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/kikka/[/hr]
For simple groovy styling and possibly great fighting air-air, I would choose the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden.

I don't really think that there is any one single aircraft that would stand head and shoulders above the rest, although the Me-262, Spitfire, and Mosquito are certainly up there.

simon

21st August 2003, 05:30

Interesting (and Brave) choice in the Me163 for best interceptor, personally I don't think it could possibly be rated as the best interceptor, as any aircraft that is more dangerous to it's pilots than the enemy cannot be considered successful in any role.

Yes it had many of the attributes of a good interceptor, good armament, high speed and phenomenal climb, but...

The Me163 had a well known tendency to explode on landing and in combat due to the dangerous combinations of fuels, however it's fuel (T-stoff and C-stoff) were so volatile that the aircraft were known to explode when sat on the ground on a warm day!

Take the operational record of the two Gruppe that operated the type, one scored 9 kills for 14 losses, the other achieved no kills, not an enviable record! (Losses exclude training and non-operational accidents).

Perhaps the Me263 could have corrected the Komet's shortcomings, but I guess we'll never know. For the record, and despite it's shortcomings my vote for best interceptor has to stay with the Me262.

The He219 is eaily the best nightfighter, and stands well above it's contemporaries the P-61 and Mosquito NF MkXXI. My own opinion is that they should be rated He219, Mosquito and Blackwidow, in that order determined on performance, armament and range.

Everything else I would agree completely with, so what are your votes for:
a) Best Carrier Fighter,
b) Best Escort Fighter,
c) Best all-round fighter (Not multi-role warplane).

Corsarius

21st August 2003, 18:07

Hmmmm.
Best Escort Fighter
Best Carrier Fighter
Best all-round fighter (not multirole).

You know how to create difficult choices.

OK: Best Carrier Fighter - Fairey Firefly. I understand that with combat slats and the power of the gryphon engine it was able to out-turn zero fighters, surely something impressive to behold in such a large, capable, and well-armed aircraft.

Best Escort Fighter - Ki-83. I'm not all that partial to the big fighters, and while the Mustang, Lightning, and Thunderbolt are also sterling aircraft in this category (as well as a few surprising Italian examples), I quite like the Ki-83. I feel that it's success would have been renown if it had turned up earlier in the war. Probably the only real equal I can see is the DH-Hornet, another favourite of mine.

Best all-round fighter - FW-190. It's probably not the best in any one thing, but it has great legs, great manoeverability, low-ish wing loading, great armour and hard-hitting armament, is reasonably easy to fly (compared to it's contemporaries), has a nice wide landing gear, an all-electric cockpit, all-round view, and can be modified or adapted for a variety of roles from interception to ground attack. All-in-all, probably my favourite.

.... But that may change!

Corsarius

23rd August 2003, 14:28

quote:Originally posted by simon

Interesting (and Brave) choice in the Me163 for best interceptor, personally I don't think it could possibly be rated as the best interceptor, as any aircraft that is more dangerous to it's pilots than the enemy cannot be considered successful in any role.

It could have been worse... I could have chosen the Bachem Ba349 Natter... But I disagree that it was ineffective.

In the last days of the Reich, much was ineffective that could have been very effective if it came earlier (the Me-262 case in point). I argue for the Me-163 as it had hard-hitting anti-bomber armament, an extreme rate of climb (good for an interceptor) and fantastic (for the day) closing speed.

To quote: "After take-off from a dolly it would be going over 200mph at the end of the runway, at which point it would pull up into an 80 degree climb all the way to the bomber's altitude. It could go even higher if need be, reaching 40,000ft in an unheard-of three minutes. Once there it would level off and quickly accelerate to speeds around 550mph or faster, which no allied plane could hope to match"

It should be noted that the first British aircraft to break the speed of sound would look surprisingly familiar...

As for it's effectiveness, well no, it did tend to have the nasty habit of exploding. T-stoff and C-stoff are actually quite stable by themselves. They only react violently when combined, which resulted in early accidents during handling and storage. Similarly, Walther never quite worked the throttle correctly (it went 'boom' if you fiddled with it). If he had made the engine a little more stable and throttleable then aerial endurance could have been increased. The only problem is when due to battle damage or ground damage, the mixtures inadvertently combined.

As it were, the factor to slow the success of the Me-163 was that it became point-defence, something that a bomber stream could easily divert around. The training also had trouble coming to grips with the fast closing speeds and the pilots often fired late, acheiving less success as their gunsights were not properly calibrated to such speed.

Once this was recognised, and procedures put in place, the war was over and so was the career of the Me-163.

{edit} Even though the information is conflicting, I see that one or two Me-163C models may have made it into service. With two MK 108 30 mm cannon or two MG 151/20 20 mm cannon, and the light-activated 5 50mm vertical rocket projectiles underwing it would have been fearsome to bombers if produced in numbers, and certainly justifying my statement of 'best interceptor'. Unfortunately, all Me-163C models were destroyed to avoid capture by the Russians, who likely wanted to have another go at their BI-1 {/edit}

simon

24th August 2003, 05:28

Ah, now I never said it was inneffective, those 9 B-17s that I Gruppe shot down were almost certainly a greater loss in terms of man-hours of production than the 14 Me163s that were lost in combat. However, and bearing in mind that the Me163 was in service from before the darkest hours of the Reich, and although a lack of fuel, skilled pilots and reliable engines forever doomed the Me262 as the saviour of the Reich the Me262 did have soom striking successes, such as JV44, the same cannot be said of the Me163.

It's guns were adequate for the task, but not particularly hard hitting, they were half that of the Me262 (Even before you consider the rocket packs the Me262 could carry) and carried fewer rounds per gun, and certainly not equal to the likes of the FW190A-8, especially if the Rutstatz field modification kits are considered. An armament of 2 MG151/20s in my opinion would have been inadequate.

Equally, I'm aware of the light-sensor activated rocket you describe, I believe it was designated the SG-500 (SG meaning Sonder Geschutz I think, or Special Weapon) and was mounted vertically along the side of the fuselage, and apparently at least one kill was claimed using this weapon. The problem for mass usage as far as I could see would be that it would have been very difficult to calibrate as the shadows of the bombers would be cast at differing angles dependant on the time of interception so creating very different tragectories, also for the US heavies their undersides were far from defenceless. A direct fire weapon like the WfrGr21 or R4M would have been more useful.

I think the very limited endurance and range (Maximum range 50 miles powered flight) of the Me163 meant that it almost by default had to be used for Point Defence, infact I understood that was the role it was designed for, although I could be wrong.

It wasn't just the volatility of C-stoff and T-stoff when mixed that was the problem, wasn't one highly acidic and the other highly alkaline? I'm sure that was why the the pilots had to wear special resistant suits and I'm aware of at least one landing accident where a fuel line snapped, flooding the cockpit and dissolving the pilot in his seat!

Then there was the lack of shock absorbers on the landing skid which in a rough landing at worst mixed the fuel residues in the combustion chamber causing some of those catastrophic explosions, or as occured in one test flight, broke the spine of the test pilot. Don't forget at this point in it's flight it was a glider, going around for a second attempt was not an option.

Plus it's high speed was not really a redeeming factor since pilots were supposed to climb to altitude, use their remaining fuel circling then make gliding attacks to minimise the danger to themselves and to attack with a minimum closing speed. So you had one, maybe two attacks if you could get round to a second, lower formation at the most.

The Me163 was an interesting concept, and if greater numbers of pilots had been available to form enough point defence units at key factories it could have been really successful, as it was there weren't and the technical and practical limitations of the design I believe, rendered it a costly failure.

I guess a lot depends as well on what you count as an interceptor, for me any aircraft whose prime purpose was to shoot down enemy bombers over friendly territory is an interceptor, so in this category you could count the likes of the Spitfire MkI and Hurricane MkI.

simon

24th August 2003, 05:37

The Firefly I like, I have to admit, although I'm sure some of the American contributors may point out that some of the later Hellcats and Corsairs were equal in firepower whilst being faster and more manouevrable. Shame that one crashed recently, and on a sombre note, my condolescence obviously go out the relatives of the two men who died flying it.

I expected you to go for the Mustang for best escort, although the special long range Yak-9s could also be contenders for that catagory. Nice to see an alternative being suggested. I've always liked the lines of the Bf110 myself, but it could hardly be described as a successful escort fighter! :D

Good choice for the alrounder, and probably the one I would chose too, although that might change if I get in an argumentative mood...

Corsarius

24th August 2003, 21:58

quote:Originally posted by simon
Plus it's high speed was not really a redeeming factor since pilots were supposed to climb to altitude, use their remaining fuel circling then make gliding attacks to minimise the danger to themselves and to attack with a minimum closing speed. So you had one, maybe two attacks if you could get round to a second, lower formation at the most.

I agree, but as I addressed it, it was throttle problems that led to this tactic being used. If the motor worked as advertised, then they would be able to climb AND cruise, as well as switch the motor on and off.

Of course, this worked sometimes, but Walther never quite worked out all the bugs and so using it in it's most efficient manner was not possible.

Also, Dittmar worked later for convair, enhancing his tailless designs into things such as the F-102, so it's not all that bad. Better than the post-war fate of the Me-262, which only went as far as the Sabre fighter......

Corsarius

24th August 2003, 22:06

"T-stoff was highly corrosive to any organic material, so it could only be stored in aluminum cotainers. C-stoff could only be stored in enameled, glass or anodically treated containers. No doubt these sensitive fuels provided challenges in getting fuel to the aircraft. Specially designed trucks were used for this."

I'll look around to try to find exactly what the fuels are, but I have also heard about the "pilot dissolving" episode, and I have heard it's one of those WWII urban legends, even though some people did get injured by it.

Corsarius

24th August 2003, 22:16

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

"T-stoff was highly corrosive to any organic material, so it could only be stored in aluminum cotainers. C-stoff could only be stored in enameled, glass or anodically treated containers. No doubt these sensitive fuels provided challenges in getting fuel to the aircraft. Specially designed trucks were used for this."

I'll look around to try to find exactly what the fuels are, but I have also heard about the "pilot dissolving" episode, and I have heard it's one of those WWII urban legends, even though some people did get injured by it.

[edit]"C-Stoff was a mixture of 57% methyl alcohol, 30% hydrazine hydrate and 13% water. T-Stoff was 80% concentrated hydrogen peroxide, to which some additional stabilizers were added. "

"T-Stoff was 80% Hydrogen Peroxide"

IE: T-stoff is the stuff you clean hospital floors with, and C-stoff is effectively souped-up alcohol.

You've gotta love a fighter that flies on bleach and booze.

simon

27th August 2003, 00:52

"You've gotta love a fighter that flies on bleach and booze."

On that note alone it's got my vote!

Long live the Booze guzzling Komet!

Corsarius

28th August 2003, 19:01

Hmmm. Maybe I'll have to put that one in my sig. That came up spontaneously, and is better than "Vie ein floh, aber OHO!" [8D]

And my 'best all round' stands at the FW-190, but is rapidly being caught up to by the CA-15 Kangaroo....

GregP

1st September 2003, 14:09

Hi,

New guy here. I stumbled accross this forum by accident and had to join.

Wow, what a long discussion about the supposed "best" fighter of WWII. Have many of you read the Aug 03 issue of FLIGHT JOURNAL? In it, Corky Meyer looks at this same question.

In his estimation (and he was there), the "best" must have several characteristics. For those of you who do not know, Corly was a production test pilot for Grumman during and after WWII. He flew all the Grumman stuff as well as the fighters and bombers of all the other manufacturers, sometimes in comparative circumstances.

1) It must be good in fighter-to-fighter combat.
2) It must be able to escort bombers to and from targets.
3) It must be able to prosecute an air-to-ground attack to support the troops.
4) It must be able to do photoreconaissance mission.
5) It must be friendly to 200-hour new combat pilots since that's who was flying it.
6) It must have been around for awhile and must have experienced comtinuous improvements in performance or capabilities.
7) It must have contributed to the war effort.
8) It must be rugged and survivable.

Corky gives all his reasons for choosing as he does, and he ended up picking the P-47 (not a Grumman product) for the ETO and the Grumman Hellcat for the PTO.

Shortcomings he listed were:
P-51: Too fragile from the rear in combat, not as maneuverable as some of the competition, not particularly a good ground attack aircraft, and wsas hard to fly when full of gas.

Spitfire: No range, and somewhat fragile. Main item was range. Not a bomber escort.

Bf 109: One third of the Bf 109s were lost in takeoff / landing accidents due to misalignment of the wheels. Messerschmitt knew this and never fixed it! That's 10,000 fighters written off due to bad landing gear!

P-38: Numerous flight limitations, but a good, effective platform.

Yak-3 / 9: Might be the best, can't tell since we have virtually no data on bomb tonnage dropped, victories, losses, or operational issues.

Fw 190: A close number two to the T-bolt. Not particularly maneuverable, but a good platform with good ground handling (unlike the Bf 109) and good armament.

Corky picked the P-47 for bomb tonnage dropped in ground support missions (more than twice the next closest fighter), toughness, armament, range, user-friendly handling, probably the third or fourth best allied air-to-air plane, around for the long haul, overall operational serviceability.

His opinion is certainly worth considering.

For just an air-to-air fighter, I like the Reggianne 2005 or the Macchi 202. Beautiful, decent speed, acceptable armament even if a bit weak.

For the most effective sir-to-air fighter of WWII, I have to go with the F6F Hellcat ... or the late model Spitfires. The Hellcat had a 19-to-1 kill ratio, maneuverability, toughness, was there when we needed it for a long time. The late model Spits were awesome, but were too few, too late. The Hellcat was there for a good portion of the war, was never outclassed by anything else it flew against in a dogfight, and had a tough and reliable R-2800 radial. The armament was a bit light (same as the Mustang's and Corsair's), but it did the job and shot down more than 5,000 enemy aircraft (way more than the Corsair), escorted bombers to and from targets, did ground support, carrier protection, patrol, reconasissance, and every other task asked of it.

My alternate pick is the Yak-3 / 9 series. Damn near unbeatable in the hands of a decent pilot at low to medium altitudes. Many will say, "So what, we fought at high altitudes." Not in Russia. They flew at low altitude to attack the Germans so, if you wanted to try and stop the Russians, you were stuck with low to medium altitude flying where the Yaks were surperb. Wish we had some hard data to look at. Without it, I can't even make a case. Same for the Lavochkins ... no data except that the highest-scoring allied ace, Ivan Kozehdub with 62 kills, flew a Lavochkin La-5 for most of his kills.

I cannot understand all the people who tout the Me-262 as the "best." It could not dogfight, had poor acceleration and unreliable engines, made no real contribution except to use up badly-needed German production resources, and was virtually unable to fly more than one or two missions in a day, even at short range (which is all it had to start with). Certainly, it was well armed and could have downed many bombers, but it DIDN'T.

Call it a technological curiosity, like the Me-163 and the He-162. Not a contributor, but a good piece of experimental hardware.

I wish the Nazis had made a bunch of Natters! Dead pilots and short flights; Natters in small pieces. That would have contributed a lot, huh?

ickysdad

2nd September 2003, 10:59

1.If we are choosing the best fighter of the ENTIRE WAR,we actually are down to about 3 choices....the Spitfire,Me 109,and FW190.You probably throw out the '109 since she was getting very long in the tooth.The Spitfire & '190 were in service for an extensive period of the war.The Tempest,P-51,P-47,P-38,F4U,F6F,Me262,the Russian Yak's and LA series,"George",Zero,"Frank",Raiden were all great fighters,but none fought from the very early part of the war.
2.You brought up multi-role capability earlier that's where planes like a good many of US designs and the '190 come to the fore-front in being very capable fighters,but also carrying those big bombloads for ground attack and being extremely tough..The great range of several US planes make them strategic weapons as well as interceptors/tatical weapons.
3.From Black Cross,Redstar website...

1.1.43 - 31.12.43

Bombers 1,700 Combat losses, 3,600 total
Ground-attack 3,900 Combat losses, 7,200 total
Fighters 5,600 Combat losses, 11,700 total
Total combat planes
11,200 Combat losses, 22,500 total

Training, transport and miscellaneous
500 Combat losses, 4,200 total
Total a/c lost
11,700 Combat losses 26,700 Total Losses

The toughness and determination of Soviet pilots is not in doubt.
But if an air force fights a life-and-death war, yet losses 56% of its planes to
non-combat causes, something must be amiss.

Of 11,700 fighters lost in 1943, over 52% did not fall to enemy action. Even
given the harsh environment, that seems
disproportional.
#3 has nothing to do with best fighter just thought I'd add it.Though it seems the Russian airforce had training and managerial problems and this has to tie in with your response on Japanese operational And design problems in thier a'c.Things like this have to be looked into in determining the beast a'c.
4.the Luftwaffe lost 57,000 combat losses in the West,4,980 combat L's in the East,25,000 operartional losses in both theatres.Shot down 45,000 in the East,35,000 in the West.From 1943 there were about twice as many fighters in the West verses the East though the Luftwaffe had a considerable part of it's total strength in the East,but mostly tatical bombers since the majority of it's fighters had to be deployed to stop the allied bombings.
I think dogfighting tends to be way overrated,90% of pilots shot down said they never seen the a/c that shot them down suggesting energy tatics were far more important.

GregP

2nd September 2003, 15:55

I disagree that we're limited to the Spitfire, Bf 109, and Fw 190. You mentioned losses and something amiss. Consider that one third of all Bf 109's ever made were written off in either takeoff or landing accidents ... mostly landing. Yeah, something's amiss ... the 190 might have been very good in the air, but it was a dog of the first magnitude on the ground.

I said the fighters must have been around for a long time, not for the entire war.

The short list must include the Spitfire, Bf 109, Fw 190, P-51, P-47, Hellcat, Corsair, Yaks (3/9), Lavochkins (5/7/9), and probably the Zero.

So, are we chosing the best all-around fighter or just best air-to-air and fighter-to-fighter?

The Spitfire, though a wonderful dogfighter, didn't have the legs to do bomber escort and so wasn't even a factor in escort duty. It didn't drop much bomb tonnage either.

The Bf 109 was a good fighter, but had very short range like the Spit and was abysmal when landing ... lost 10,000 while landing! Tough to choose THAT as the best.

The Zero was supremely maneuverable, but was outclassed from about 1943 on. Near the end of the war the Zero was a deathtrap for the pilot unless he was VERY good at avoiding bullets.

Of the rest, the Hellcat had a kill ratio that was 50% better than the Corsair, and it performed all the duties of a multi-role fighter. In fact, it had the best kill ratio of ANY fighter until the F-15 Eagle. Better than the P-51 and Fw 190. Consider that the Hellcat fought in an ocean environment, and you can see that the opportunities for air-to-air combat were fewer than in Europe on a mission for mission basis.

The greatest allied ace flew a Lavochkin La-5FN most of his career. What we donl;t have is a lot of information about the Lavochkins or the Yaks. The Yak-9U had the best power-to-weight ratio of any WWII fighter at 3.2 pound per HP. The La-5FN/7/9 had 3.7 pounds per HP and were right in the same ballpark, and their wing loading was in the mid 30's.

So, I am left with the Fw 190, P-51, Yaks, or Lavochkins as the main contenders. The power loading of the radial-powered Fw 190's was around 4.5 pounds per HP at half payload, and the wing loading was in the 40 pound per square foot range. The popwer loading of the P-51D was in the 5.4 pounds per HP range at half payload, and the P-51 didn't get into the 4 pounds per HP range until the P-51H, which was very late in the war. The P-51D was in the 39 pounds per square foot range.

Of these, the Fw 190 is remembered as being the fastest-rolling fighter of WWII, so that counts for a lot since the ability to roll away from an opponent before you pull g's will open distance between the aircraft.

Taking all my emotion out of it, I'd have to award the title to either the Fw 190, Yak-3, or La-5/7/9 aricraft, the Hellcat's kill ratio notwithstanding.

The Yaks, though superb aircraft, only had one cannon and 1 or 2 MG's. The La-5FN had two 20 mm cannons. The La-7 had three 20 mm cannons, and the La-9 had four 23 mm cannons.

The most heavily-armed Fw 190 was the early Fw 190 A3 with four 20 mm cannons and two 7.9 mm MG's. Most of the rest of the Fw 190's went to two 20 mm cannons.

None of the Spitfires would go much more than 500 miles one way. Forget the round trip. The P-51 didn't have the guns to compete with the La-9. Ditto the Hellcat and Corsair.

Taking this into account, I give the nod to the Soviet Lavochkin La-9 with four 23 mm cannons, 3.7 pounds per HP power loading, 35.9 pounds per square foot at half payload wing loading, a ceiling of over 37,000 feet, and a useful combat radius of 550 miles or so. Too bad that western pilots didn't have a chance to fly them in combat.

The Fw 190 series was very close to the La-9. It had the same ceiling, was slightly slower, and had about 2/3 the range of the La-9. Armament was close. So ... maybe the order would be Fw 190 and then La-9 ... it's that close.

These picks are stricly from the statistics of the airframes. As we all know, airfoil, propeller airfoil choice, individual rigging of controls, and any number of other things affect the way a plane flies.

I have no pilot-in-command time in any WWII fighter, so my choices are made without being nased on flight in the above-mentioned airframes.

Before you disagree, please rcall that Ivan Kozhedub was the highest-scoring allies ace. He mostly flew the La-5FN, not a P-51 or Spitfire.

If we're talking a beauty contest, then the inlines have it cold. The SPitfire is beautiful. Ditto the Macchi 202, the Regianne 2005, the P-51. Even the Bf 109F is a very pretty aircraft, except for the angular canopy lines.

But for sheer competence as a fighter aircraft, the radial eingined Fw 190 and the La-9 series of fighters are pretty damned hard to beat on an individual basis.

simon

2nd September 2003, 17:19

Well, for a start I'd disagree that the Hellcat fought mainly over open ocean, since a lot of sorties flown from carriers in the pacific were flown in support of Marine and Army forces, either as fighter escort for attacking planes, or directly attacking themselves. In any case as I've said earlier, the Hellcat was facing a Japanese Navy and Army that was little more than cannon-fodder when compared to the pre-Guadalcanal standard.

I don't think you can fairly say that just because the best Allied Ace flew a certain plane, that necessarily makes it a good plane on its own. Consider first the differences between the US and British systems of routinely rotating pilots back to operational training units, versus the German, Soviet and Japanese systems of throwing units into combat until they were exhausted or destroyed. Of the latter only the Russians had the manpower reserves to do this successfully, the US and RAF pilots by comparisson had far less time to score kills. Besides, to follow that argument through to it's logical conclusion if you look at the top 10 aces for the whole war, most of them flew Bf109s in one guise or another for most of their operational career.

I understood the most heavily armed Fw-190s were the A-8s, with 2 13mm HMGs, and a wing armament of between 4 x 20mm Mg151/20s augmented by "Rutstatz" kits of an additional 2 20mm Mg151s, or even a pair of 30mm Mk108s. I could be wrong here, but I'm sure that as the need to shoot down B-24s and B-17s increased, so did the armament of the Fw-190s.

I wasn't aware that any of the Soviet Aircraft carried 4 23mm cannon apart from the Il2M, although again I've been wrong before and could be wrong again, but in any case the Soviet NS23 23mm Cannon was not a remarkable air to air weapon, it was roughly in the class of the MG-FF with regard to muzzle velocity and rate of fire.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the better Japanese planes, like the George, Jack etc, were only produced in relatively small numbers, had little time to make an impact and were recieved by an airforce deficient in trained pilots, and whose few experienced pilots were used to far slower but more nimble planes, consequently many would naturally try to fly a "Jack" like it was a Zero.

Finally, the later Spitfires, particularly the Griffin powered ones, had quite good range, especially once they added the centre-line tank, infact their range was as good as that of the P-51D without drop tanks, admittedly they arrived too late to help the early Strategic Bombing offensive, but the P-51s only really started arriving in any kind of number in Spring 1944.

ickysdad

3rd September 2003, 02:30

What I'm getting at is the divorcing of An airplane from it's airforce.Look at the Russian losses 56% of it's fighters were lost to non-combat.The IL-2 lost twice as many rear gunners as pilot,one was sent to the West but wasn't accepted for production because for one they didn't want a dedicated ground attack craft ,2nd. they consider it junk.It may have been the most produced a/c in WW2,but it had to be because of losses.The Russian fighters had great climb rates,but so did most US planes when using WEP could climb quite well to,of course you can't use it forever they say 5 minutes but alot of pilots used it far longer without damaging the engine.Anyway I'm drifting here but it seems some aircraft had serious maintenance problems and as you said problems even taking off & landing,but anyway before anybody gets carried away by some of the Yak & LA saeries of fighters look at the losses to non-combat in my post above and difference in German losses East vs. West and the number of aurcraft the Luftwaffe shot down East vs. West.

simon

3rd September 2003, 02:37

I also read regarding the Il2M that examples that were captured by the Germans were regarded with a kind of shock by the Luftwaffe pilots, they just couldn't believe that anything so basic was allowed into production!

Regarding the Combat/Loss rates East and West, I have also read it said that one kill in the west was worth 5 kills in the east, of course that could also be another one of those WWII myths...

ickysdad

3rd September 2003, 10:03

Well on performance of aircraft one has to be careful,alot of websites say USAAF fighters like the P-38,P-51,and P-47 can only climb about 3000' per minute while Zero's and Russian fighters can climb over 4000' per,however it seems those low figures for USAAF aircraft seem to be with full load of fuel AND either drop tanks or bombs.In his book "Duels in the Sky" Captain Erich Brown says the P-51 can climb at 4000' per minute.On the "Planes & Pilots of WW2" website there is listing of the P-38L being able to top 4000' per on Military Power and well over 4800' per using WEP.There is discussion of a Merlin engined P-38(the P-38K) that plane would have been outstanding,however the USAAF refused to shut down plants for 2 months to switch production over.The P-38 F's, G's, and early J's would have been extremely formidable if the intercooler problem was fixed,dive flaps added,and airelon boost added ,this could have been done in 1942,but the funds were refused.The P-51 itself,with Merlin engine was ready for production in 10/42,but the USAAF wouldn't authorise mass production.Now the P-47 was developed into the M & N versions which were outstanding,but there was a J version that was designed purely as an interceptor and I'll venture to say that there would be nothing superior and very few equals to it,as an dogfighter-interceptor that is,but it didn't have enough range for the USAAF.
Now I want to bring up something else alot of times people compare planes of different time frames ,let's say a FW-190A4 vs. F4U/1 Corsair pretty close to even,now a F4U/4 probably has a big advantage over a 190A4,but it's a late '44,early '45 design,the A4 maybe a late '42,early '43 design and in WW2 ,a year is a huge difference in plane design.A better matchup for the F4U/4 would be the '190D-9 or TA-152.Another thing USAAF planes took far longer from the time they entered production till they got into action compared to thier contemporaries,why? because the US not only had to ship the planes over but also the maintenance crews,repair facilities,ect.,ect..The P47D entered production at the Evansville,Indiana plant(about 50 miles from where I live) in 9/42,but when did it enter service in Europe? The USAAF also had WEP in thier planes a huge advantage and when others were using 87 octane fuel,they were using 100 octane,when others caught up to the 100 octane,the USAAF got 120-150 octane.

GregP

3rd September 2003, 13:53

I have to agree with some of the assertions I see above.

The specifications for various WWII aircraft cary WIDELY depending on the source. I have seen a single aircraft's empty weight quoted by different sources differ by sevceral thousand pounds ... and that's for a less-than-10000-pound aircraft!

I suppose the ease with which one can put stuff on the web makes people who don't research their data a real pain to we who want accuracy.

About "rate of climb," (ROC) let's put it in persepective right here. There is NO STANDARD way to report ROC. Do you report initial climb rate at sea level, attainable ROC at 10,000 feet (or some other altitude of choice), or perhaps the time from 2,500 feet to 10,000 feet?

I really hate to quote ROC since I am not intimately aware of supercharger or turbocharger efficiencies or altitude performance.

I DO like power to weight ratio in pounds per HP or kg/kW. The reason I like it is the fact that designers tried very hard to get the best engine and propeller combination for their creations, so we can assume the engines and props are as good as the designer had time to develop. Call them nearly equal ...

Id we look at power-to-weight ratio, we can see which aircraft would climb better ... assuming a wing loading in the average range. Most WWII fighters had wing loading (pounds per square foot) ranging from the low 30's to the low 40's. Average was mid 30's.

So, if we see two fighters with similar wing loading, say 35 and 38, and then look at the power-to-weight, we can infer that the lower PTW ratio would climb better, giving an advantage in combat.

This DOES NOT look at the power produced at 25,000 feet, but DOES give a relative indication of the performances of the two aircraft when the engines were making rated power.

I would venture to say a P-51D might well climb at 4,000 fpm clean, with half ammunition, and one third fuel. Did they fight that way? Not when they were based in England, or they wouldn't get home. Once we had airfields in France, maybe ...

For sheer power to weight ratio, the Yak-3's and -9's were the best. Wing loading was low 30's. Armament was good.

I'd say they would climb rings around a P-51 if both planes were flown in a similar weight-fraction state. But ... I'm not really sure and neither are you, unless you happen to own both and have tried it.

As for the Soviet equipment lacking sophistication, I can state this with certainty, the Soviet planes were serviced and flew in conditions when German fighters were frozen solid. Soviet guns WORK in bitter cold. They might not have been as technologically sound as the Fw 190, but they flew when 190's were grounded, and shot up 190's on the ground when they did so.

I have seen a MiG-15 UTI up close and personal since I helped put one together in Phoenix, AZ between 1990 and 1995. It was rugged, simple, and easy to maintain, and could take off from a dirt field that was not particularly smooth. Try that in an F-86 or a Hunter.

Late-model P-47's were VERY good fighters and might give any other plane a run for its money.

Don't you all wish we could get a new bunch of WWII fighters and just FLY them to compare? Damn that would be fun!

Till then, we are stuck with opinions. Most people in the U.S.A. have little or no knowledge of the Societ side of WWII and almost non knowledge at all of Soviet WWII aircraft ... other than the Il-2 since it is a popular PC game. I happen to have seen a Genuine Soviet-built Yak-3 fly, with the original Russian engine. It performed as well as any fighter demo I ever saw, and seemed to turn tighter as well. The takeoff was arrow straight as was the landing, and it was on pavement. Could be just a great pilot, I can't say. But it WAS impressive.

Corsarius

3rd September 2003, 14:13

Following on from your argument, then, the 'best fighter' would likely be selected closer to the end of the conflict.

Thus, I advance the CA-15 (or even the CA-14a) as 'best all round fighter'. These aircraft were flown only in prototype form late in the war, but especially in the case of the CA-15 Kangaroo, it was superior in speed, manoeverability, etc to any piston-engine fighter then in existance.

However, I choose the FW190-series as the best all-round, as they were pretty much the best when they first rolled out, and continued to be at the top, or pretty close to it, throughout the war.

As opposed to the lightning, mustang, boomerang, these aircraft all had problems from the start. The lightning had unreliable engines that were not 'handed', a strange armament mix, and supercharger problems. The mustang was pretty cruddy until the merlin engine was added, and the boomerang was hamstrung by resource problems.

Oh, all right. The Boomerang is hardly a fighter, as Wirraways shot down more japanese aircraft than they did, but hey, I still like the stubby little plane.

Corsarius

3rd September 2003, 14:26

Oh, and BTW, I will (hopefully, work permitting) be going to a fairly large-ish airshow on the weekend. There will be plentiful Harvards there, Sea Furies, a spitfire (mk VIII), Wirraways, Boomerangs, Mustang fighters, a Fiat G55, a yak3, a P40...

If I can get under the tapes as a freelance photographer, as I occasionally manage, then I will question the pilots to get relative performance data.

Also, where I was growing up, some of the men who my mother went to church with were in the RAAF during the war. Most flew P40s, Wirraways, Gladiators, and Boomerangs. A couple had kills to their names. Even at the end of the war, they were of the opinion that the Zero fighter was an adversary to take advantage of the weaknesses, but for goodness sakes don't try to dogfight. Our minister, who was a glad pilot, felt that the old Gloster product may have stood a chance. I don't think anyone else really agreed with him.

simon

3rd September 2003, 16:18

Enjoy your airshow, I took my 2 1/2 year old to his first air show recently, it was only a smallish one and the only warbirds of note were a couple of Mustangs, a Spitfire MkV, a Hurricane, and a couple of Fiesler Storch's, but he loved it.

Out of interest, and I'm only really asking because I haven't seen any hard data on the Kangaroo myself, just a short reference on another website, but how does it compare in speed, armament, etc to the Dornier Do335A-6 Pfiel? The latter usually get's my vote for best-ever-piston-enginned-fighter-that-never-was, but if you can convince me otherwise, I may well have a new choice...

Corsarius

3rd September 2003, 17:09

OK. Give me a day or two. I have the "Wirraway, Boomerang and CA-15" book from the RAAF kicking around at home somewhere. The CA-15 has an interesting history.. it began life as a radial-engined fighter with a US engine, but due to the fact that the US didn't want production competition post-war (hey, got to give them marks for thinking ahead), they only offered us completed airframes (thunderbolts). Soooo the Australians then got a griffon engine (a 60?) which resulted in a redesign, and the aircraft looking like a Mustang on steroids. In the end, there were sufficient aircraft for Australia not to continue development, and then the jet age came, which was the real nail in the coffin of such a sterling aircraft.

I'll get official RAAF stats and things for you as soon as I can dig them out (I've just bought a new house, and the library is in a bit of a shambles).

ickysdad

4th September 2003, 13:00

This is for Greg P ,I'm not knocking Russian a/c,but you really can't compare a long range escort to a point interceptor in dogfighting terms.I'm sure alot of planes couldn't live with a Spit or Yak in a turning dogfight at low speeds,low altitudes,but niether of these would want to live with a P-51 or P-47 above them ready to dive on them,getting up to extraordinary high dive speed which it can use to climb back up or in high speed rolling manuvers.I guess it's all trade offs of some kind,but there is one thing about USAAF planes though,the old saying goes "A P-51 can't do what a Spitfire does,but it can do it over Berlin" and you don't need any dedicated ground attack aircraft with them around.Just think the NA75 was ready in late'40,the Merlin engine was already being produced then,imagine a merlin engined P-51 being ready for mass production in early-mid 1941.

Corsarius

4th September 2003, 14:47

Okey-dokey... This is a bit off-topic, but I'm rapidly becoming a bit of a 'pfeil pfanatic'(as you may notice from my sig pic).... hey, it's a nifty bird all right, and kind of funky-groovy as well as being a contender for 'best piston-fighter ever'.

Anyways, I stumbled across this website while I was doing some comparative analysis for Simon, so here it is for all you fans:

It seems to be a fictional site, and in Korean (which I can't read) to boot, but I really like the (probably fake) pic on the main screen!

http://firstflights.hihome.com

GregP

4th September 2003, 16:35

Hi guys, I'm back.

The Ca-15 never got into production, so it didn't actually fight in the war. It was an Australian version of the P-51 with a deeper fuselage and a Griffon engine ... but was pure P-51 in design. I'm thinking the best fighter of WWII should actually have fought in the war, shot down enemy planes, and should have produced some impressive numbers in terms of combat statistics. Call me crazy.

The Ca-15 didn't do any of the above.

About the American fighters having initial troubles ... you're right. But they didn't have as much trouble as the Fw 190 did. It took almost a year to sort out engine overheating, baking the pilot, and exhaust leaks into the cockpit which required the pilot to use oxygen even at sea level. The early, radial-engine Fw 190's never DID overcome a very HOT cockpit. On the prototype, the cockpit temperature on a 25-minute flight got to 130Â°F!

The airframe was always a good one, but the engine instalation and the ability to open and jettison the canopy at operational speeds to bail out were difficult problems for Kurt Tank and company to overcome.

In their defense and to acknowledge your choice, the Fw 190 remains a VERY good fighter aircraft, possibly the best in WWII ... but I think that if we have proven anything, we have proven that naming the "best" is a subjective thing.

Yes, the Yak was a meduim-altitude fighter, but it wouldn't have too much trouble with a P-51 if the pilots were equal, assuming the wing loading and power loading in my database are correct. If so, it would out-turn the P-51, out-accelerate it, and the speeds were nearly identical. If the pilots weren't equal, I'd put my money on the best pilot.

We in the U.S.A. like to think our pilots were the best or among the best. I bet the Russians think the same way, and their top ace outscored ours, so who is to say? I bet the British, Australians, Poles, Romanians, etc. ALL think the same way ... National Pride is rampant, huh?

If we're going by scores alone, then the whole world takes a backseat to Erich Hartmann, Gerhard Barkhorn, and Gunther Rall. Among them, they shot down 928 airplanes plus probables ... mostly flying the supposedly outmoded Bf 109 of one variety or another, not the Fw 190.

Hhhmmm ... wonder why these people, who were the best ever and who had their pick of mounts, didn't choose the Fw 190?

In reality, it's probably the fact that they were comfortable in the Bf 109 and didn't want to "learn" another plane in the heat of battle. At least that's what Gunther Rall said when I talked with him once via mail. His position was that the top aces were familiar with the 109, knew the switch locations and the way it flew intimately ... so they chose to stick with a familiar friend in battle rather than to try out a new thoroughbred and get nailed by an unfamiliar mount in an unfamiliar circumstance.

Back to the original question, the best ... I suppose we'll never really know.

People like to think of the Spitfire as a sprint climber and a really tight turning aircraft. Funny, it didn't do so well against Zeros when they met. My point is not to put down the Spitfire but to point out that one person's idea of "the best" may well be tied up in a particular theater or with a particular enemy aircraft type.

In fact, the major types didn't get to fight on all fronts in any great numbers, so we are left comparing apples to oranges.

The P-38 was awful in Europe, but a resounding success in the Pacific. It's a bad thing to be flying at 25,000 feet in Europe with a perfectly good P-38, but be unable to fight the Luftwaffe because the damned airplane has a lousy heater, so you are frozen in the cockpit. Ask any pilot who flew them in Europe. I once talked with a pilot who flew P-38's in Europe. Tony Levier came over to demonstrate the P-38 and did slow rolls right off the runway at 400 mph. The pilot I spoke with told me he was thinking to himself while watching the demo, "Nice flying. Let's see you do that after 4 hours at 30,000 feet and a quick dive to treetop level!"

OK ... I'll agree the Fw 190 is great ... if you'll agree the Yaks could wax it at 15,000 feet.

Corsarius

4th September 2003, 17:41

quote:Originally posted by GregP

The Ca-15 never got into production, so it didn't actually fight in the war. It was an Australian version of the P-51 with a deeper fuselage and a Griffon engine ... but was pure P-51 in design.

Allow me to say you have been misinformed.

The CA-15 was entirely an Australian design that went through quite a long and convoluted design process, and had nothing at all to do with the P-51.

The original engine was expected to be the R-2800, which the US did not agree to sell to Australia. CAC then had to source an engine elsewhere, and settled on the Griffon engine. This necessitated a redesign, with the radiator and associated plumbing being placed below the pilot. This leads many people to have the misapprehension that it has something to do with the P-51, whereas the location of the radiator was of necessity, and not of design.

In it's original incarnation, which was entirely mocked-up using an on-loan R-2800, the CA-15 looks entirely different, with a similar empennage, but an enormous and deep front which contained the R-2800, oil cooler, cooling fans and gills, etc etc.

The armament was originally to be 2*20mm cannon and 4*.303 machine guns, similar to the Boomerang fighter, but was changed early on to 4*cannon, and finally 6*50cal machine guns, which was the final decision and which was built into the laminar-flow wing.

CAC did build the P-51 post-war, and they also did a great deal of work to produce the 'ultimate' sabre fighter, the avon-sabre, but the CA-15 is an entirely indigenous fighter, from tailwheel to prop spinner, with no design impetus from any other circle.

And yes, you can see I feel rather passionately about it, and have researched it quite thoroughly.

Please feel free to use the following links as reference:
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~ue626/doc/ca-15_doc.htm

http://www.dropbears.com/av/KFXart/articles/ca15.htm

ickysdad

5th September 2003, 11:26

When you compare fighter scores ask how many missions did they fly? Harttman flew something like 1400+ missions if I'm not wrong,I doubt any American or British pilot flew more 1/6 that,but maybe I'm wrong.On the P-38 being awful in Europe,I think the late "J"'s and "L"'s fixed the heater problem.As far as comparing the Yak to Mustang ,as I understand the Planes & Pilots of World War 2 website,the Yak 3 entered squdron service in July,1944 and was equipped with VK-105 and had a speed of 403 mph(climbed at 4400' per minute),very,very few had the VK-107 and those came much later ,but had a speed of 448 mph.The Yak 9U's came into service in late '44 at 1st. with the VK-105PF-2 ,later on they got the VK-107,the VK-107 engined a/c capable of 435 mph.The 1st. P-51's entered service in October,1943 and it took USAAF designs far longer to get into service thah contemporaries,we had to ship not only the a/c overseas but all the maintenance and equipment,ect.,ect..1 year during the war was probably equal 5 years in peacetime.Actually if going to compare the Yak 3 and Yak 9U's to USAAF a'c you probably need to consider the P-47M,P-47N,P-51H(it entered production in early '45),F4U/4, or F8F ,you can probably add the experimental P-47J or P-51G from early '44 as a better indicator of Russain vs. USAAF fighter performance.

ickysdad

5th September 2003, 11:33

In 1944! http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p72.html

Corsarius

5th September 2003, 15:03

quote:Originally posted by GregP

OK ... I'll agree the Fw 190 is great ... if you'll agree the Yaks could wax it at 15,000 feet.

I agree entirely, but the question Simon asked of me was for any, ONE aircraft that I would choose as 'best-all-round'. I choose the FW190 as it was a combat machine by your own criteria, rather than the CA15 which would have been overall superior. So Yaks or no Yaks, I still choose this aircraft as my 'best all round'. Have a look a couple of pages back if you want my complete list of aircraft for different fighter roles.

GregP

5th September 2003, 16:30

Gotta' make my point again. The CA-15 and the MB-5 never flew in the war and never shot down or dropped anything in anger, so they don't count as WWII fighters, at least to me. Interesting prototypes, just like every country had, especially Germany, who probably had more abortive prototypes than any country in the history of aircraft.

The P-51H was faster on less engine power and the MB-5 was faster, too, though it had more power.

Taken as a whole, from your links, the Ca-15 was a very good aircraft that arrived a bit too late, and was unfortunately at the end of the piston fighter era. If it didn't owe anything to the design of the P-51, then the sky is green. Sorry, I call a spade a spade.

Since the P-51H actually fought in the war and accumulated many missions, victories, and other impressive combat statistics, and was faster, by what measurement do you claim the Ca-15 to be better? You can dive ANY Mustang to over 500 moh, even the P-51A. Stating that the Ca-15 did 500 mph over Melborne tells me the Ca-15 was pretty good, but doesn't tell me much since it never got into a dogfight with the competition.

I could wish it were otherwise since the aircraft looks like a winner.

As for the Yaks, my books (originals printed in Russia, english language translation printed in Czechoslovakia) state the Yak-9D was flying in combat in 1942 and the Yak-3 with the good engine was doing the same in 1943. The P-51B/C was the main Mustang delivered in 1943, with the P-51D jusr starting to show up.

The original razorback P-47's were the dominant Thunderbolts at the time, and the Fw 190 was flying around on a BMW radial engine, not a Jumo.

Nothing wrong with the P-51 B/C, the razorback T-bolt, or the BMW=powered Fw 190, but the Yaks were better dogfighters than anyof the copmpetition. Once you got above 17,000 to 20,000 feet, then I'd give the nod to another fighter ... either the Fw 190, the P-51, or the Spitfire. I'd take a Thunderbolt above 30,000 feet.

However, if you wanted to fight a Yak, you had to go down low since that's where they were ... shooting down the attacking ground support aircraft and disrupting the ground forces.

Like it was stated in sevceral eariler posts, the "best" changes depending on the role assigned. All piston-engined fighters were compromises.

Can't argue with the Fw 190 as generally the best but, then again, I couldn't argue with the P-51 or Spitfire either. It all depends on what you are doing with it.

In a dogfight, give me a Yak, a Spit, or and Fw 190 ... in no particular order.

Talking bomber escort? P-51.

Talking ground attack? P-47 or Tempest (the Typhoon's engine wasn't too reliable).

We're back where we started. Ha! Fun, isn't it?

Corsarius

5th September 2003, 17:27

yep, back to the beginning...

That's why I just bit the bullet regarding the FW190. There's plenty more I'd like to choose, as it seems you would too. But what, as a SINGLE fighter would you choose? No mucking about, just one fighter, out of all of them. Tough choice, huh (I know, I deliberated for some time)? BTW, your criteria, as I said before, is the reason I chose the FW190, as I also tend to agree with you. It's nice to 'what if' though.

Regarding the appearence of the CA-15, trust me, it's a coincidence. I'm trying as hard as I can to get you an original picture of it in it's original guise with the R2800 engine on the net. All I can find is a pic from a computer game, and that's not worth my time. You wouldn't recognise it. I have the pics at home in my RAAF book, but I have no scanner! Very frustrating! The Griffon engine installation really altered the CG of the aircraft, resulting in the placement of the radiator under the CG, as a radial-engined aircraft doesn't really require one. That's the real reason it looks like a mustang. Get rid of the radiator and put a long snout on it a bit like a thunderbolt, and that's what it looks like.

As for speed? The CA-15 was faster in both level flight and in the dive than the mustangs it was trialed against, and also more manoeverable. Basically, it was an aircraft out of it's time, that given an engine when required would have turned the war here, and the aircraft manufacturing in this country, around. I don't like it, but I have to admit it's a good policy if you want to remain at #1, that you don't let your competitors get an edge. Post-war Australia was the 4th most powerful nation in the world, but due to clever planning and management from the great powers (the 'home country' and America), Australia was stymied in terms of development, and kept economically tied. For example, should the CA-15 have gone ahead, Australian manufacturing and designing would have been emboldened, and Australia would have been far more independent militarily, a situation that was not entirely acceptable. The same goes for the CA-14a, which required similar engine and supercharger upgrades, and would have been a great fighter. (Australia also had it's own tank and rifle designs that only made a few prototypes for similar reasons)

The CA-15 was killed by politics, as well as the pace of the war and development post-war. A shame, but there it is. It was the last piston-engined fighter anywhere to enter flight testing. There's plenty of other aircraft that would have been fantastic if not killed by politics! (the Doflug D-3802/3803 (well, not really these but I like them), or the FFA P-16, anyone? Ok Ok, I'm going back to WWII now.....)

Link here for the D-3802.. the ultimate derivative of the moraine fighter.... http://www.simviation.com/fsdcbainD-3803.htm

and a lovely pic of the other Swiss aircraft during the war, the C-3603: http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/Hangar/museums/Flieger-web/dbp6.htm

And here is a (very) brief history of the P-16. It doesn't really belong here, but I thought I'd add it for completion purposes. http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v2/v2n2/switzers.html

Are my origins showing? :P

simon

5th September 2003, 21:17

I think an awful lot depends on your definition of what counts as a WWII Fighter. For me I would say any aircraft that was developed, flew or served as a fighter prior to the Japanese surrender counts. I think there is a difference between what is the best and what is the most effective. Certainly a large number of kills, or sorties makes for an effective aircraft, but if you outnumber your opponent 20 to 1, it doesn't make the kills that surprising, nor does it necessarily make the plane you're flying a good one.

Yes, national pride plays a part, although you may notice that I personally vote for the Do335 rather than a British or Commonwealth plane. And you are correct in that most accounts describe the Yaks out dogfighting the Germans easily by the time of Operation Zitadelle, but I can't help wondering how much of that was down to the standards of training and equipment in the Red Army, and how much was down to the decline in the same standards in the Luftwaffe.

Interestingly though, when Red Army planes and USAAF Mustangs clashed in friendly fire incidents over Berlin, the Soviets came off far worse so perhaps the Yak was not the supreme dogfighter that is claimed?

And finally, the P-51H was not produced in great numbers (555 out of a total of around 13,000 Mustangs excluding the F-82 Twins), and did not achieve a great deal in WWII, arriving too late to really influence the airwar in Europe, the definitive Mustangs, just in terms of numbers have to be the P-51Ds, and the P-51H cannot really be considered. Oh and your dates for the service entries of the Mustangs are about a year out, the P51B/Cs didn’t enter service until winter 1943/44, with the P-51Ds following around late spring.

ickysdad

6th September 2003, 11:28

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Yakovlev.html as far as Yak's entering serive and with what engines.Also "Aircraft of World War II" by Bill Gunston and "Combat Aircraft of World War Two" by Elke C. Weal,John A. Weal,and Richard F. Barker.What I'm getting at with the Yak's is that the Yak 9U(and it was the 1st. of it's series to have the VK-107 engine) didn't get into service till late '44 and every source i've ever seen on the Yak 3 says it entered production in late '43,but didn't get to squadrons till mid '44 and that very,very few had the VK-107 engine as opposed to the VK-105."Luftwaffe Fighter Planes & Aces" by Joe Christy has interviews with Erich Hartmann among others saying that the Yak 3 didn't enter squdron service till early '44 or at least they didn't encounter it.I guess our sources say different and we'll have to agree to disagree.The P-51B/C's entered production in January,1943(they were ordered in October,'42 my mistake) as far as why it took another year to get into squdron service,look at the P-47C/D they entered production in September,1942,but how long for them to reach England and being issued to squdrons?

GregP

6th September 2003, 15:30

Damn! I wish my the avilable data agreed better.

Don't know about you guys, but I can find data that says a particualt fighter weighs 5000 or 7000 pounds empty.

Seems that no source agress with another one.

Corsarius, OK, I'll allow that I've seen a drawing of what the R-2800 powered Ca-15 MIGHHT have looked like (but never did) but ya' gotta' agree, it came out looking like a P-51.

The dates on the Yaks might be right or wrong. I'm choosiing to believe the Russian books since they were there and we weren't. You can choose to believe our side if you like.

Please remember, there never HAS been an American-authored book that gave credit to the Soviet Union or the Russians. The Russians built the biggest bomber of WWI (Ilya Mourometz), flew the longest flight in history until WWII (Moscow to Washington State), surprised us with the MiG-15 in Korea, beat us into space,surprised us with the MiG-217/19/21 in Vietnam, the MiG-25 and the Su-27.

Now they have the MiG 1.22/24 and we're denying it can do what they SAY it can do. Why? All their OTHER airplanes did what they claimed. Ditto their space boosters, which were more powerful than ours.

All I'm saying is the Yaks had the flight characteristics and power to weight to the greatest fighters of the WWII. Whether or not they WERE is for each fighter-nut to decide.

I have seen one fly (MiG-3) and it did so better than any Spit, Mustang, or any OTHER WWII allied fighter I ever saw fly. Of course, the ones I HAVE seen fly were flown by the owners, not by a military pilot willing to demonstrate the plane for the purposes of national prestige or sales.

So, we're left with opinions.

I can live with the Fw 190 and not be unhappy. Ditto the Spitfire unless we're talking bomber escort duty. Ditto the Mustang, especially the P-51H, unless we're talking ground attack. Low level, I gotta' include the Yak-3/9 and the La-5/7/9.

Best SINGLE fighter ... hhhmmmmmm ... that's a tough one ...

If I can only have ONE, I want a Ta-152H (not an Fw 190A-3), and I hope I don't have to fight at 10,000 feet. Oh yeah ... and a SHITLOAD of spare parts!

ickysdad

6th September 2003, 21:27

Well I'm not trying to be a pain Greg,but alot of the reasons American authors DIDN'T give proper credit was due to the closed nature of Russian society and thier access to info.They didn't have a free press and such.Also for a long time thier pilots,genaerals,and I'm sure authors HAD to say thier equipment was better.I don't think the dates we're both quoting are that far off,you say the Yak9 D was ready in '42,I'm saying the much later Yak 9U wasn't ready till late '44.You said the Yak 3 was being produced in '43,I said late '43 it started production,but there is always a lag time between entering production and being issued to squdrons and I did say some had the VK-107 engine,but jusy not very many..I also stated the USAAF had a disproportionate time with this because of having to ship aircraft,pilots,mechanic and all maintenance equipment 3,000 miles across the Atlantic or 6,000 miles across the Pacific.
The reason I keep bringing up about ther Yak' delivery dates was your statement that the Yak was every bit as fast as the Mustang as far as VK-107 engined Yak 3's and very late modeled Yak 9U you're right,but I think alot of people see the max speed of the latest model and assume every one was that fast which is not true.The NA73,forerunner of P-51 was ready in late '40,but didn't get the Merlin engine till late '42,these early P-51's were dogs comparatively speaking so it would be false to give them the same speed as a "D" model.
As far as not giving Russian's proper credit,I'm not one of them regardless of my posts.When I compare aircraft I look at when production started and it's performance.I argued with a guy one time comparing a TA152 to a Spitfire V and he thought it was a fair comparison of each nation's fighters.I just used sources availiable to me,I've ordered "Soviet Aircraft of World War Two,Single engined fighters" by Zefrim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov to try to get an extra source.Over on the 12 O'Clock High website there was a discussion of a book by Dimitry Loza(hope I got the right book saying that Yugoslav pilots compared the Yak 3 to the Spitfire V.,completely different generations.I also understand Russia's leading ace flew a P-39 ,but am really not sure.Heck as far as fighter vs. fighter Claire Chennault had an enviable record throughout the war using P-40's,so maybe it's really mute trying to figure out the best.
In one final word the Russians lost 25-28 million people in the war and probaby most of the credit should go to them,we produced alot of equipment,but they put thier bodies on the line and there's simply no comparison.

GregP

7th September 2003, 01:55

Nice post, Ikcysdad, with valid points.

25 million casualties in WWII is staggering to comptemplate, but the Russians experienced it. Small wonder they are particularly suspicious of countries with whom they share a border, huh?

The U.S.A. suffered about 400,000 casualties in WWII. Think of the disparity in the numbers! The Russians suffered over 60 times as many casulaties as we did and engaged about 70% of Germany's ground tropps for several years straight.

That's a tough assignment.

If teh war had dragged on for, say, another year or two, then we probably would have seen the Australian Ca-15 in combat, the very late model Spitfires, perhaps some Sea Fury's, and who knows what.

One thing is certain, the world went into WWII flying rag-wing biplanes and 1-st-generation monoplane fighters to a large extent and came out flying jets. Funny how man's most impressive advances always seem to come in war.

simon

7th September 2003, 18:41

A history teacher of mine once commented that virtually every family in Russia suffered a personal loss as a result of the war, I personally don't know any Russians and I haven't seen any actual evidence to back this, but the bloke concerned certainly knew his subject, so I have no reason to doubt him. To me this brings home the human factor of the war in a way that casual statistics cannot, I think it was Stalin who is quoted as saying "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic."

I agree with most of what Ickysdad says, although I think you may be wrong about the dates of service for the Yaks, particularly the Yak-3, since this saw it's first combat over Kursk during Operation Zitadelle during August 1943, but as so often happens, this could just be a matter of what you personally count as early-, mid-, or late- in a year.

Before we all join in congratulating the Soviets too much, let's not forget how much our brave Allies were willing to plot with the Nazis in 1939 over Poland, how the NKVD was almost as effective as the Einsatz Gruppen until Barbarossa in exterminating the Polish intelligencia, and just as good after German Troops had been pushed out of the country at eliminating any anti-communist opposition, not just in Poland, but anywhere in Eastern Europe. Suspicious about countries they shared a border with? The Soviets were just as adept at treachery as any nation in WWII, if not more than most.

Don't forget also that if it wasn't for Britain's refusal to surrender in summer 1940, the Soviets would have been facing nearly 100% of the German Army, and there would have been no lend-lease, no special aid, and no second front in Europe.

But, I digress... ;)

ickysdad

7th September 2003, 23:04

Well from several sources,including Bill Green's "Famous Fighters of World War Two" it(Yak 3) did make it's debut at Kursk,so maybe it should be late-mid '43 when it became availiable.You know we focus so much on the very best of a nations equipment of the war,but I think we should remember things like the Soviets won the war with the T-34C,not the T-34/85 of JS series and the Germans lost the war with the Mk. III's & Mk. IV's these are tanks,but I think it's the same with Aircraft.In the West it was the P-38 & P-47 that did the job on the Luftwaffe,at least from the USAAF's standpoint,for the so-called "big week" occured in Feburary,1944 before large numbers,or rather before it became the dominant majority of escort fighters, of P-51's were really availiable.So I guess the "best" aircraft of the war is the one that was there when it was really needed.

GregP

8th September 2003, 02:02

Nice posts guys.

One thing I will never forget is the ability of the Soviet Union to lie and disseminate misinformation. I attribute it not to the people, but to the government in power during the Soviet Years. Let us also not forget that the USA, Great Britian, Germany, and Japan were accomplished liars, too. So, the Soviets have no exclusive rights to being called names.

I understand lying in wartime for national security reasons, but events like the Warsaw uprising are impossible for me to understand. The Soviet Army let everyone in Warsaw die so their political ambitions after the war would not have any opponents. That is a crime against humanity.

The Germans did, in fact, commit the holocaust. That is a crime against humanity.

AT least the Japanese committed an act of war against mostly a military target at Pearl Harbor. The Germans were made to pay for their crimes. The Soviet Union was never made accountable.

I digress ... back to the subject.

Best fighter if looks counted in combat: Reggianne 2005 or Macchi 202
Best fighter for pure fighter-to-fighter dogfight: Grumman Hellcat
Best Night fighter: Heinkel He-219
Best ground attack fighter-bomber: Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
Best point-defense interceptor: Messerschmitt Me 262
Best Photo-recce fighter: Supermarine Spitfire or de Havilland Mosquito
Best Bomber escort fighter: North American Mustang or late-model Spit with range
Best high-altitude fighter: Focke-Wulf Ta-152H
Best all-around fighter for all missions combined: Fw 190D / Ta-152

How's that for a short list?

simon

8th September 2003, 02:56

Stalin was never made accountable because although he was a complete bastard, he was our bastard, at least when it suited us. The Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour was militarily brilliant, a stroke of military genius against a hostile (Although not beligerent) military, (Heavily influenced as Corsarius pointed out by Britain's Fleet Air Arm in their antiquated Swordfish :D... Allows himself a moment of national pride...).

However the Japanese treatment of prisoners was appalling, I have heard many excuses, ranging from "Never signed the Geneva convention" through to "Well, they just had a different view of POWs", but to me nothing excuses the treatment the Japanese gave Allied POWs, and the worst thing is that compared to the slaves that were locally drafted, the POWs got off lightly. The Co-Prosperity Sphere was a nightmare for its subjects.

To use your stastistics, 400,000 US personel lost their lives in WWII, but in the Rape of Nanking the Japanese killed 300,000 civilians alone. We should have held a Japanese "Nuremburg" after WWII, but after the Atom bombs everyone had really lost interest, and they just wanted to get on with rebuilding their own countries.

The Japanese Army and Navy were as far removed from the ideal of the samurai as the Waffen SS were from the Teutonic Knights, both the Japanese treatment to the conquered nations and the German treatment to the occupied eastern territories was completely evil.

The Nazis are unique, in that the extermination camps in Poland were part of a process designed to systematically wipe out an ethnic group, however what the Japanese did, the did for fun. To me that's somehow worse.

Anyway, once more I digress from what is supposed to be a "Best Fighter" thread.....

Can't help it though, it's something I feel strongly about.

GregP

8th September 2003, 11:53

I perhaps have some insight into the Japanese treatment of captured peosonnel. I knew several older Japanese who participated in WWII. None of them wanted to fight the USA to start with, but those were the orders. When the whole country fels threatened and the cry goes up to defend the country taht is being choked to death by American imperialism, it's hard to resist the trend, especially when the raw materials they needed were being blocked by the USA every day.

In the Japanese view, they treated soldiers and civlians as things to be used for a purpose. If a soldier did not "get" the training right away, he was beaten regularly until he did. Their rations were, for US citizens, bordering on starvation. But it kept the recruits hungry for more and eager for action.

They viewed fighting as an affair of honor. If you lost, it was OK, if you won it was OK. Winning was better, but an honorable loss was OK in training. If they killed all the people who lost in training, then at least half would never get to the front lines! If you surrendered, you HAD no honor and were a thing to be loathed. They regarded captured soldiers as animlas without honor, but fed them about like they fed their own soldiers, which is to say very little. To a US citizen, it was slow starvation. To a Japanese soldier, it was normal if hard to take.

Yes, the Japanese killed 300,000 in Nanking. Yes, they were pretty fierce and brutal to captured soldiers. No, they weren't made to be accountable. Too bad. I wish they HAD been. Too late now.

I, for one, know about two dozen former Nazis living in the USA. One is a woman who was 16 when the war ended and she was an aircraft spotter for the Luftwaffe.

She told me that all of Germany knew they had made an error in electing Adoph Hitler by 1942, but the first thing Hitler did when he got in power was to disarm the population, so they couldn't do anythihg about it. By the time she joined the Nazi party, you HAD to in order to eat, and no civilians had guns. When she surrendered at the end of WWII, they took her to England with about 300 other girls and held them in a prison camp for about 2 months. She said the guards were all men from the US and British Armies and they rotated about every half day or day. And they didn't want the girls to get lice or anything, so they made them shower 2 or 3 times a day naked while they were closely watched ...

Anyway, after 2 months, the US Army figured they weren't dangerous, so they let them go home to Germany. Many were pregnant ...

Point is, many civilians and plain old military personnal were simply doing what was ordered. Not during the rape of Nanking, the Warsaw uprising, or the other was attrocities.

I'm talking about the run-of-the-mill German soldier on the front. He had probably left home in 1939 or 1940 and hadn't been home since. His "news" was from Goerbbels and consisted of "We are winning, so keep fighting for the Fatherland. Heil Hitler!." The food kept getting worse and worse, anf inally it got less and less.

He kept his Mauser clean and well oiled and knew nothing of the death camps. In other words, he was a good soldier.

I cannot find it in myself to hate a good soldier fighting for the fatherland. Especially since we took away the German indistrial area called the Rhur Valley in the Treaty of Versaille and left Germany in poverty. If you were starving, yuou might want to fight to regain former territories, too.

The ones I hold responsible are the leaders and commanders who either ordered attrocities or stood by and let it happen (though I'm not sure what they could have done in any case ...).

This hold true for the Soviet Union and the Japanese. The people who made and implemented policy were the criminals, as well as the people who were executioners.

Most of the common soldiers, though not all by any means, were sinmply doing what they were ordered to do and did nothing other than wage war, which is one of the oldest rights in the world.

When the USA decalred war on terror, how many US citizens resisted to the death? None. I didn't. So are WE war criminals?

Depends on who is on the jury. Care to be judged by Bin Laden's relatives? I know we'd all be guilty.

Sorta' depends on where you are coming from when it comes to judging your fellow man.

It's not really done, but it's probably best to judge the beasts of the world according to their own laws. In most cases, there are laws in on the books thath prevent attrocities. I'd bet the Germans in authority would NOT have gotten off any easier if we had let the German population judge them, but that's just my supposition.

Look what the Italians did to Mussolini. Hung him.

Probably would have been just to turn the Nazi war criminals over to the people who lived near the death camps and told them, "Do what you will with these anmials." I knew one who was from near a camp that would have skineed them alive and then tried to make them live as long as possible. He was VERY bitter from being made to live near the stench and death of the camp, and had NO love lost for the butchers.

GregP

8th September 2003, 13:53

Hi guys,

I checked my sources again and most agree with you guys. Most say the Yak-9 entered service in 1942 and most say the Yak-3 entered service in 1943.

I still have one source that states both were flying earlier, but I now believe it is simply in error. There seems to be a LOT of stuff on the internet in error, especially about aircraft weight, engine power, and performance ... but I see a lot of aircraft misidentidied!

There are several websites out there that identify the CAC Ca-15 as a Mustang. Many of the Russian sites have U.S. aircraft misidentified ... but my source is an old book. I suppose information about Russian aircraft of WWII wasn't exactly easy to get in the 1950's!

Anyway, I'm with ya' now. 1942 and 1943 ... OK. To me, the Yak-9U looks to be the best of the bunch ot Yaks. The commonwealth Ca-15 LOOKS like a Mustang on steriods, but clearly is another airframe. I still say there was some design migration going on since CACwas making Mustangs under license at the time, but the Ca-15 is to the Mustang like a Sea Fury is to the Tempest. Clear family lines, but another animal entirely.

Corsarius

8th September 2003, 14:46

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Corsarius, OK, I'll allow that I've seen a drawing of what the R-2800 powered Ca-15 MIGHHT have looked like (but never did) but ya' gotta' agree, it came out looking like a P-51.

Steering the thread AWAY from political issues....

Sure, I completely agree. I never disagreed that it looks a lot like a mustang (I agree. It's the source of a lot of misidentification). I disagreed when you said:

quote:It was an Australian version of the P-51 with a deeper fuselage and a Griffon engine ... but was pure P-51 in design

When it most patently is not.

And good choice of the Ta152H! Quite a nice bird!

GregP

9th September 2003, 14:27

OK, no more political answers (at least tonight)and I like the Ta-152 series of fighters for their overall performance.

Ditto the P-51H model and the Sea Furys that made it into WWII. Seems I recall several actually made it into the war.

david lane

9th September 2003, 16:52

I've read the last few days of posts .. interesting. The Yak3 flying at Archerfield on Saturday and Sunday is now powered by a Merlin donk. What does that make it? Who cares - it was fun to watch a superb aerobatic exhibition - all below 4000 feet.

Corsarius

9th September 2003, 17:15

I didn't make it to Archerfield (hey, another Brisbane boy!), but to my knowledge, all Yak-3 replicas are Allison-powered.

david lane

10th September 2003, 07:19

Re: Yak3 - not this one (re Allison powered) I beleive it was re - engined with a Merlin - suggest you have a wander around the Flying Fighters Museum at Archerfield open Wed - Sunday I think from around 10.00am. Fun place

By the way thank you for your age comments - my first flight was in a Lincoln over 40 years ago

GregP

11th September 2003, 13:14

Where is Archerfield? Country and locale?

Wasn't aware that A Yak had been re-engined with a Merlin but, if ya' have the money, it makes sense ... assuming you really like the Yak.

Would love to see Doug Champlin's Dw-190D-9 fly, but he's not gonna' do it. Calls it "too valuable."

Bunk. But, it IS his bird, so he gets to make the calls.

To bad he can't at least film a flight so we could all enjoy it. You know, from outside in a chase plane and from inside via cockpit and helmet cam, and froma fin cam.

GregP

11th September 2003, 13:16

Oops ... that's Fw-190D-9, not Dw ... Docke Wulf? S

ounds positively awful, huh?

david lane

11th September 2003, 14:28

[quote]Originally posted by GregP

Where is Archerfield? Country and locale?

FYI - Archerfield is in Brisbane, Queensland Australia. It is now the General Aviation Airport for Brisbane. I can recommend this site for some of the aircraft that were flying last weekend. Incidently the closest RAAF base is Amberley some 30kms west home to the F111 fleet.

www.flyingfighters.com.au/

parzifal

19th September 2003, 22:34

This is my first post to this Board, I have enjoyed reading all the threads and meanderings so much :-)

I have to argue as others have the Spitfire was the greatest fighter of the war, all the techno stuff seems well argued, yet the Spitfire was fighting at the forefront of technology at the start of the war and it was still right there at the end, only the ME 109 can match that claim.

Technology was a see-saw, one side then the other gaining an edge, so much so its irrelevant comparing models ie the FW 190A was clearly superior to the Spitfire VB, the Spitfire ix was superior to the FW190A etc. The Mustang had an infinitly superior range and was decisive from Jan-June 1944, once the invasion of Europe was undertaken, range became less and less of an issue.

So that aside, I decided to look at the impact of the aircraft upon their pilots. The saying was "Fly the Spitfire and die, because everything else was dead". The poem "High Flight" was written by a Spitfire pilot, it is hard to see a pilot of any other fighter writing " Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth, And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings".......... "reaching out to touch the face of god".

There is a book, long forgotten and long out of print by an Australian author Ivan Southall, the book is called "Bluey Truscott" a biography of a now forgotten fighter ace. Truscott along with the Irishman Paddy Finacune formed one of the deadliest RAF fighter pairs of the war, at a time when the Luftwaffe was at its height of power and the FW190A was clearly superior to the Spitfires in operation.

Southall's book tries to describe the Spitfire

"There they saw her. There they embraced her. There they fell in love with her. She didnt look much bigger than the Tiger (Moth), but she looked much more deadly. She was sleek. She was groomed. She purred. She was so graceful she even knew it herself and she arched her back where they could touch her. She was a poem, an ode to perfection. Michell's vision and England's freedom, the darling of a generation, the sweetheart of the Royal Air Force. Men died for her and with her. They would have flown her to the stars.

A thousand horses stood abreast within her. A thousand horses, and one man and many thousands bullets. A pocket package of poison, Man with fingers of fire........ Man with the key to poetry in motion, to beauty, with his spirit at the brink of eternity.
The Spitfire"

The Spitfire was that rare piece of machinary that moved beyond being a tool and become part of its pilots pysche and a Nation's mythology.

Corsarius

21st September 2003, 11:46

quote:Originally posted by parzifal

"There they saw her. There they embraced her. There they fell in love with her. She didnt look much bigger than the Tiger (Moth), but she looked much more deadly. She was sleek. She was groomed. She purred. She was so graceful she even knew it herself and she arched her back where they could touch her. She was a poem, an ode to perfection. The darling of a generation, the sweetheart of the Royal Air Force. Men died for her and with her. They would have flown her to the stars.

A thousand horses stood abreast within her. A thousand horses, and one man and many thousands bullets. A pocket package of poison, Man with fingers of fire........ Man with the key to poetry in motion, to beauty, with his spirit at the brink of eternity.
"

I'm confused... You're talking about the Macchi Folgore, right? no, no, wait, I have it, the Me-109, no, wait, the Heinkel He-100, um, no, wait! I have it! It's the Ki-61 'tony'! That description could have been any one of these.

Poetry is nice, but I don't think it wins wars.... and neither do pretty planes. However, if this were a 'prettiest plane of WWII', then the MkVIII spit is definitely right there at the front.

Otherwise.....
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori

GregP

23rd September 2003, 15:01

Poetry really doesn't win wars.

If I wanted to deploy 10,000 of ANY fighter in WWII, I'd deploy 10,000 P-47's.

They were no slouch in the air-to-air portion of the air war, and decidely better at ground attack than either the Spitfire, the Fw 190, Bf 109, or the Mustang.

As much as I LOVE the fighters, the ground units won it. The P-47's supported them better than any other fighter.

Before you tell me about Typhoons, Tempests, and Il-2's, remember the bomb tonnage dropped by P-47's was greater by far than for any other fighter type. They also had 8 x 12.7 mm MG and an engine that could take hits and still get you home.

Pick only one?? for the fighter-interceptor role? And ignore ground attack? Give me the Ta-152. Otherwise, I'll stick with the P-47 in all it's models.

GregP

23rd September 2003, 15:11

If anyone wants comparative numbers on these sircraft, I have them.

Weights, hp, wing area, speed, ceiling, guns, etc.

Late in the war, the Commonwealth Ca-15 looks very good, as does the Martin-Baker MB 5. Unfortunately, they were not a factor, so they don't count.

The P-51 , Fw 190, Bf 109, A6M, F6F, P-47, Yak-3/9, La-5/7 were a factor.

The Me 262 did some damage, but very little compared with the effort expended to deploy it. Thank heaven the Nazis were concentrating on forlorn hopes instead of killing the bombers.

The Japanese likewise had the Ki-84 Frank, the Ki-61 II, the Ki-100, and some others. Glad they didn't get a chance to deploy them in large numbers.

Of the fighters who won, the P-47 stands out as a hard-hitting ground attack craft plus the capability to hold their own in an air-to-air fight. The Fw 190 was too little, too late, as was the Me 262 and Me 163 (which was a bad concept to satrt with ...). The Volksjagger was ludicrous. Ditto the Natter. Idiots. What WERE they thinking?

P-47's and P-51's were attacking them EVERY day, and they come up with rocket fighters with a 5 minute endurance?

Off to the Russian front with the designer! And the idiot who authorized production.

Gimme' an old He-100 any day.

simon

23rd September 2003, 17:32

I make the bombload of the P-47 no greater than that of the Tempest MkV, Corsair or Hellcat at 2 x 1000 pounders each, and the Tempest has 4 20mm Hispanos which is at least equal firepower to the P-47.

I'll give you that the P-47 was good at ground attack, but so were the others, but it was definitely a good all rounder, a US pilot even managed to bounce Adolf Galland and wound him in his Me262 when flying one. If they'd been able to get a bit more fuel into the Thunderbolt the Mustang might be as obscure as the Whirlwind...

Don't know why you reckon the Fw190 was "Too little, too late", they made 20,000 of them, and they were flying operationally from September 1941!

I'm not so convinced that the Volksjager was ludicrous, it was fast, very manouevrable once the structural issues were resolved, and in the hands of skilled pilots it could have caused the Allied bombing offensive serious problems, if it weren't for a shortage of just about everything it needed (Fuel, skilled pilots, ammunition, etc, etc, etc!). I think the biggest problem the He162 would have had, would have been the idea of crewing the Staffeln with Hitler Jugend boys straight out of glider school. As it was, it really was too little too late, and in all honesty by the time the design had been commissioned Germany had already lost, it was just a matter of time.

The thing to remember, as I've mentioned in other threads is that it is very easy for us, sitting at our computers benefitting from sixty years of hindsight, to say: "See, that was so obviously a bad idea!", when it must have seemed very promising at the time. Both the US and Britain persued a few equally bizarre and improbable looking projects the difference is that the US especially could afford this diversion of effort, Nazi Germany could not, and also these are mostly eclipsed by the fascination most of us have with the Luftwaffe's Secret Weapons.

Corsarius

23rd September 2003, 17:53

quote:Originally posted by simon

Both the US and Britain persued a few equally bizarre and improbable looking projects the difference is that the US especially could afford this diversion of effort

Hey, the tank with the strap-on wooden glider wings was a GREAT idea! Same as the autogiro Jeep!

Intruder

24th September 2003, 06:54

I'm a newbie here and have been working my way through this thread from the beginning. Wow, quite a discussion! What a long thread!

My problem with questions like this is that the more I learn about this subject, the more I struggle for an answer. "Best" fighter can mean best interceptor, or best bomber escort or best ground attack, depending on what is most important to you. Throw in some personal bias, some nationalism and the mud can start flying!

For pure air superiorty in the European theatre, the Allies also tried to answer this question, through a series of tests done in the summer of 1944 over souther England, based at the RAF's Air Fighting Development Unit (AFTU). On hand was a P-47D, P-51D, Spitfire XIV, Tempest V and a captured FW-190A. The long and the short of it was that it came down to the Spit and Mustang. Top speed was almost a dead heat, the Spit barely quicker. The Mustang had the advantage in diving, the Spitfire in climbing. Each type could easily see off the FW-190 and Thunderbolt. It was agreed the the new "long nose" Jumo engined FW-190D now being encountered was a different "kettle of fish" however. Below 20,000 ft the Tempest was deemed the superior performer.

Of course, depending on what qualities you hold dear, you can draw your on conclusions from any comparison. Mustang proponents will point to it range, or climb rate and interception qualities for the Spitfire types. P-47 proponents will rightly point out it's ground attack capabilities, not taken into account here. Of course, if that quality is most important, you take that a step further and yield to a proper dedicated "armoured attacker" such as the IL-2 "Sturmmovik", nearly impervious to ground fire. As ponted out elsewhere, many of these types complimented each other rather then competed with each other, allowing each type to cater to it's strengths.

Regards, Dave

parzifal

24th September 2003, 16:28

sadly sees no poets in here :-))), oh well :) For all those comments about what wins wars, well it's actually ........

[i]Did the fighter perform its primary function and gain and hold control of the air in its sphere of operations? ............

That's what actually wins wars, not poetry :-), not specifications, not "what if's".

A simple example of the danger of reading "specs" from computer screens, the wing loading on the BF 109E was lower than that of the Spitfire Mark 1. Therotically according to basic laws of aerodynamics, it could therefore turn inside a Spitfire and so on paper is the better plane all round. Reality was different.

The best fighter is really to broad a subject, in North West Europe? the Eastern Front? The Pacific? The Middle East?

The RAF did conduct a serious test in 1944 as Dave rightly pointed out, showing that depending on the circumstances needed what the best aircraft was. The test found that each aircraft had its virtues and weaknesses.

The mighty P47? the Jug, as an air to air fighter was immediately relegated to ground attack as soon the USAAF got a better aircraft, the Mustang C. Likewise the RAF Typhoon went the exact same way, both were replaced as air to air fighters when something superior came along. Yet both carved an important niche out in a different arena, the battle field tactical environment.

I remember seeing a classic cartoon from WW2 about the Jug, showing the pilot taking evasive action by undoing his harness and running around the cockpit to dodge the bullets, the ability to absorb a lot of battle damage is just one way of saying it was easy to shoot.

The TA152, yes a stunning piston engine aircraft, almost the ultimate expression of that genre. What was it for? to attack bombers? the ME262 was superior all round, to dogfight allied fighters? it wasn't that superior or numerous enough. Its impact on the enemy was negigible. Pierre Closterman in his book "The Big Show", showed that RAF pilots held it in respect but were not overally concerned, Tempest Mark V's, Mustang D's and Spitfires X1V's were able to hold their own in combat with it. The fact that Kurt Tank went down that path of designing yet another piston engine aircraft when the ME 262 jet fighter was in service (and the way of the future) is curious to say the least. Least after the war he could have laughed, as Supermarine invested its time in developing the pistoned engined "Spiteful" instead of jets and the company was left behind.

Changing production lines for the Allies were always an issue, hence they still churned out P47's, Typhoons etc relegating them to ground attack instead of rejigging the factories to make better aircraft. Off topic a fair bit (sorry) but as an example to illustrate the issue of production, is the continuation of the Allies to make Sherman tanks in 1944-1945 when they were clearly inferior to German tanks from 1943 in every way. American crews called them "Ronsons" ( a joke on the cigerette lighter that would "light first time, every time"), the Germans merely called them tommy cookers. Factories are a huge part of winning wars to.

For the British, the Spifire is the best fighter from the Mark 1 through to the Griffon engined marks, it achieved that primary function of seizing and holding control of the air time and again. For the Americans, the Mustang (with Merlin engine) achieved the same goal.

The Germans, that is hard, the Luftwaffe won some battles post 1940 but always lost overall. In 1941 the FW 190 was superior to the Spitfire V series, and the Luftwaffe did defeat the USAAF Bomber Offensive in 1943 stopping long range unescorted penetration of its air space. Yet both victories were temporary and quickly turned around, the first by the Spitfire 1X series, the second by the Mustang. So to me, the ME 262 must clearly be the best German aircraft as it was such a quantum leap forward in technology.

The Japanese, they got left behind in the technological field, though the Zero was the world's first truly long range fighter, years before the Mustang. Their philposphy seems to have been, they did the shooting, so did nothing to protect their pilots from someone daring to shoot back. Russians? the later Yaks were superb at low level able to operate in extreme conditions. As the Russian Air Force was mainly tatical, operating over the battle field itself, to fight them the Germans had to go low and mix it, the German aircraft were "better" but didnt manage to gain control over the battlefield past 1943, so failed in their primary task.

The Italians, their Macchi series with the BMW engine were superb (but fragile) fighters able to hold their own in combat with any aircraft, their impact again was negilible. The Australians with our (yes I used our) CAC Boomerang, it never actually shot down an enemy aircraft, and was relegated to ground attack. The CA 15 never went past the prototype, its the classic "what if" , kind of like the Canadian Avro Arrow of the 1950's (least the Arrow was a jet)

So what was the best figher ? Based on the criterion that is used in war, seizing and holding control of the air, it really comes down to the Spitfire and Mustang. One short range (defensive), one long range (offensive), interestingly both powered by the same British engine. Both were able to seize and hold control of the air.

So its always going to be a personal choice when all said and done. Pilots wrote poetry about their Spitfires :-))), that tips the balance for me.

It would be interesting to see this thread look at the engines, in so many ways it was the engine that determined the best fighters.

.

Corsarius

25th September 2003, 16:12

Saburo Sakai wrote poetry about the Zero fighter. Does that count?

Intruder

26th September 2003, 04:59

The Zero certainly does!

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

Saburo Sakai wrote poetry about the Zero fighter. Does that count?

Corsarius

26th September 2003, 13:20

Australians also wrote songs regarding the prowess of the indigenous Wirraway as a fighter, bomber, and interceptor.

Unfortunately due to language and content issues I cannot post that here.

simon

20th October 2003, 18:21

I disagree that the P-47 was relegated to ground attack because it was a poor performer in air-to-air. It wasn't, and I don't really agree that any aircraft that is involved in ground attack was necessarily relegated at all.

The main superiority of the P-51 to the Thunderbolt was in range. That was where the Mustang really excelled, and that's why it eclipsed the Thunderbolt in air to air combat, because it could reach far enough into the Reich to escort the bombers, not necessarily that it was a better fighter, it just had longer legs.

Whilst it was also good in air to air, the Jug's huge radial engine and ability to absorb damage meant that it was very capable in ground support. For the record, and I fully admit I'm going from what I've read in books here, but most fighters tended to take damage in ground attack, even the Mustang, the difference was in the Thunderbolt's ability to absorb it and still bring its pilot home.

I do think there is a distinction between the likes of the Stormovik and the Thunderbolt. The Stormovik was designed purely to attack targets on the ground, the Thunderbolt by contrast was designed as a fighter. The Stormovik was no more a fighter than the Ju87 or Flying Fortress.

Finally, the Thunderbolt can't have been all that bad in air-to-air, the 8th AAF's top scorers flew Thunderbolts throughout their combat careers.

Intruder

25th October 2003, 02:40

The P-47D was a good performer air to air, particularly when it debuted. The problem was that it had really met it's match by the time the FW-190 D came out in mid to late 44 and the Mustangs and Spitfires were much more able to deal with them in classic dogfighting terms. Later model P-47s would narrow the gap, but were much less common.

[quote]Originally posted by simon

I disagree that the P-47 was relegated to ground attack because it was a poor performer in air-to-air. It wasn't, and I don't really agree that any aircraft that is involved in ground attack was necessarily relegated at all.

ickysdad

27th October 2003, 06:14

Actually the '190D was a late '44 design,the P-47D entered production in September,1942.The interceptor model P-47J would have given any propellor job in WW2 a tough time,actually be even or superior but it couldn't carry a bombload and the USAAF wanted multi-capable a/c.The P-47M entered production before the '190D,but remember it took the USAAF far longer to get a/c across the oceans and operational compared to Germany which basically could roll them off the assembly line and ferry them to the nearest airfield and the P-47M would be equal,if not superior, to any propellor engined fighter of the war.The P-47N I think entered production in late '44 and would equal the '190D.The P-51H I'm pretty sure entered production in late '44 to.So you get down to it,the P-47 was even with or ahead of German fighter plane design for the war,but it was much better for ground attack then the P-51 and it didn't have the range of the Mustang so why not use it for ground attack and let the Mustang do the escort work.Let's face it even if the Mustang never came along the P-47 with drop tamks and the P-38L could have done the job,IMHO the "Jug" was the best US fighter of the war.

simon

27th October 2003, 16:45

Forget about drop tanks, they're not as significant as people think, and nowhere near as important as internal fuel, mainly because most fighter pilots dropped them on sight of the enemy. Operating with drop tanks slows the aircraft, reduces it's manouevrability and makes it more vulnerable to fire or explosion.

I would also ignore the date an aircraft enters production, far more significant is the service entry date. As Ickysdad points out the US had to ship their aircraft all the way across the Atlantic, so although they may have been being built in September 1942 they weren't in a position to engage enemy aircraft until about August 1943!

Could the Jug and P38 have done the job of the P-51? I'm not sure and as both were already in production if they could have done the job the reason to develop the P-51 from the disappointing Alison engine series via RAF Farnborough to the P-51B/C & D just wouldn't have existed, although the later Spitfires with the centre line tanks could also potentially have done the job, especially once closer airfields in France became available.

Intruder

27th October 2003, 21:48

P-47Ns,P-51Hs,Tempest IIIs, Ta-152's etc all make for great armchair conversation but really aren't too relavent to WW2 combat. The "D" models of the US fighters were the last widely produced variants, which encounter the new long nose FW-190D from the summer of 44. Of the two, only the Mustang was really a match for the new German fighter in dogfighting conditions as noted by both Allied and Luftwaffe sources after numerous encounters over the Ardennes.

No one has said that the Jug was a poor fighter, but for dogfighting it just wasn't in the same league as these. Depending on what "the job" is, it was a very capable aircraft. If "the job" was very long range bomber escort AND air superiorty, then the job was the Mustangs however. As noted elswhere, even the Allie's own fighter comparison over Southern England in the summer of 44 showed that both the P-51D and Spitfire XIV could easilly see off the P-47D in the air to air role.

simon

27th October 2003, 22:03

Agreed, a lot is a matter of "Horses for Courses".

No such thing as a Tempest MkIII BTW, the only two production models were the MkV and the strangely later MkII (Complicated development process, and this kind of thing wasn't as uncommon as you might think!).

I don't think that the likes of the Ta152 is irrelevant, afterall the answer to the original question depends greatly on your own interpretation of it. "What's the best fighter during WWII?" It doesn't ask for categories, or even that the fighter reached mainstream production or service. You could pick the Do335, Ta154, Kawanishi Shinden, and although you might have a harder time arguing your case, your answer is not necessarily wrong. Remember just because an aircraft was an influential or even war winning type doesn't necessarily make it the best, just effective, or maybe just used effectively.

Take the Il-2m as an example, highly effective ground attack aircraft, but slow and although thickly armoured far from invulnerable (Especially if you're the gunner), the Luftwaffe shot them down in the hundreds, but the Soviets built them by the thousand so they could afford the losses. Result? A highly effective and war winning aircraft, but definitely not the best of the war, and not one I would chose to take into combat!

ickysdad

28th October 2003, 11:47

A good example of not producing a better aircraft is the Merlin engined P-38K it was outstanding,but re-tooling to produce it would have meant shutting down P-38 production altogether for 2 months and it was felt not worth the effort ,furthermore it would take Merlin engines away from P-51 production which was much cheaper to build than the P-38.As far as "war winning" armaments look at the P-47 & P-51 post "D" models of each,some could have entered production in early '44 if pushed but it was felt quantity was needed more.The P-72 I think could very well have entered production in early to mid '44,but wasn't pursued.P-40's were turned out till late '44 to keep production lines active even though it was certainly outmoded by then.
About dogfighting ,itself was outmoded by later in the war.Look on the Eastern Front,German pilots were told not to dogfight the new Russian fighters below 10,000' in late '43 or early '44 however that certainly didn't keep the Germans from using energy tatics to dive from altitude knock a few planes down and then use the speed gained from the dive to affect thier getaway.I've read that 90% of pilots shot down during the war stated afterwards that they never saw the plane that shot them down.As far as the P-47 it's hard to argue with success.

preb

28th October 2003, 17:07

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! YOU ARE WRONG THE BEST FIGHTER PLANE OF WW2 WAS THE MESSERSCHMITT ME262. I HAVA HAD THIS ARGUEMENT BEFORE. IT WAS WAY AHEAD OF THE ALIED PROJECTS BY A GOOD FEW YEARS. THE ME262 INFLUENCED THE ENGLISH AND AMERICAN SCIENTISTS TO DESIGN WHAT WE HAVE NOWADAYS. WITHOUT THE GERMANS DESIGNING IT THEN WHE MIGHT STILL BE USING SPITFIRES!! IT HAD A TOP SPEED OF 870 KM/H. THE REVOLUTIONARY PLANE WAS FIRST USED AS A FIGHTER-BOMBER THEN RECON AND INTERCEPTOR AND FIGHTER. IF THE ME262 WAS MADE ERLIER IN THE WAR IT COULD OF BEEN A DIFFERENT STORY FOR THE GERMANS

simon

29th October 2003, 03:27

On what do you base this?

Look by the earliest the Me262 could have been available if the crystal ball insight was put into a device no-one was sure would work, the Germans had already lost war, the only real factor remaining was time.

Unlikely? Well by December 1943 the Germans had already lost the Battle for Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and had irreversibly lost many of their best fighter pilots over the west, for their Allies, North Africa was lost and the Japanese had suffered disasterous reverses at Midway and Guadalcanal, and finally the Me262 was completely unable to deal with the American Daylight Bomber offensive where it counted, which was on the production lines.

So with the Soviet Union able to concentrate on producing ever greater numbers of T-34s, Yaks and Stormoviks thanks to lend lease and the US production lines able to churn out ever greater numbers of heavy bombers and the soon to appear in numbers Mustang, even if the Me262 squadrons were able to shoot down 10 US bombers for every plane they lost, the US would still out match them, and the Luftwaffe would never be able to attack the US production lines in mainland America.

Over to you Preb, given the irreversible German losses on land in the East and in the air, especially in the west and given that the Luftwaffe was completely unable to harm Soviet production in the Urals or US production in mainland America, how could a fighter that couldn't even reach let alone harm the US or the Urals reverse the course of the war?

ickysdad

29th October 2003, 11:02

As I understand it to the reason for delay of getting it into MASS PRODUCTION as opposed to producing a few trial versions was developing engines that didn't need the strategic raw materials Chromium and Nickel,most of Germany's nickel came from Sweden and Chromium from Turkey.Both these metals,especiaally nickel are vital for thing like gun barrels.The way the war was going in the east guess what got priority?gun barrels? or developing an experimental airplane?.That's what I understand the delay from getting it into production in say early '43 as opposed to mid '44 was developing engines that didn't absorb vast quantities of these materials.

Intruder

1st November 2003, 06:48

Not surprisingly, newer technology will generally win out. The Me-262 is one of the great "what if" questions of WW 2 aviation. However it is a late war development and only a couple hundred made it into operational service even then. P-80's, Meteors and Vampires could all technically be included here depending on how far one is willing to stretch "operational"! If relevance for ALL of the war is to be taken into account, then the candidates for best fighter become a much shorter list.

The Me-262 was a leap ahead of the pack, but it didn't exist in squadron service until late 1944 when the war had aleady been decided by a previous generation of piston engine types. Even the P-51 is a bit of a "johnny come lately", entering service by 1944 and just in the nick of time for the US bomber offensive. For this question one needs to ask, "what fighter was at the top of the heap, in 1939 AND 1945? Me-109? Maybe, but it's late war development suffered for the sake of production. Spitfire? Definitely.

quote:Originally posted by preb

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! YOU ARE WRONG THE BEST FIGHTER PLANE OF WW2 WAS THE MESSERSCHMITT ME262. I HAVA HAD THIS ARGUEMENT BEFORE. IT WAS WAY AHEAD OF THE ALIED PROJECTS BY A GOOD FEW YEARS. A DIFFERENT STORY FOR THE GERMANS

simon

3rd November 2003, 22:28

I agree in some ways, although unfortunately this does ignore a huge number of mid-war types that were very effective in their own right, especially the US types that were built in pretty short spaces of time and that were very effective and were war winning types.

I do not disagree that new technology usually wins out, and WWII is full of examples of this (Mono-planes over Bi-planes, Aircraft Carriers over Battleships, etc), and I do not disagree that the Me262 was years ahead of its time, but what I do take issue with is those who make sweeping statements like "It could have won the war!", then don't back them up.

If you're going to make statements like that you need to back it up and like I have said, I can't see how it could, although if anyone can argue a convincing case I stand ready to accept I'm wrong.

However no single device or weapon actually won the war on it's own, the nearest anything came to it would have been the Atomic Bomb, but that really was the coup de grace for an already defeated Japan by the time it was available, and as no single weapon won the war in reality I don't see how anything could win the war singlehandedly in a "What if...?" scenario.

If the Me262 had been available earlier it could have potentially prolonged the war, but no further than about six months, after that the horrific losses would have taken their toll on the ground forces in the east, the losses to the experienced fighter pilots in the west would have taken their tolls and the USAAF would be in a position to make Berlin glow in the dark.

The biggest difference this could have made would have been that the Red Army may well have liberated the Netherlands, Belgium and France as well and the Iron Curtain may have ended on the Atlantic.

So over to you Preb, to argue your case. I look forward to your response...

Ricardo1174

5th November 2003, 13:11

Hi, I just opened a new topic "the greatest fighter pilot of wwII" (on new topics). All your comments are welcomed.

Greetings.

Ricardo.

Corsarius

5th November 2003, 14:13

Damn I hate advertising.

Ricky

5th November 2003, 20:00

Just to play the old controversial card, Simon, as far as the USSR was concerned the T34 pretty much was their war-winning weapon...

(I'm well aware that the chance for a good debate is clouded by the fact that this is a 'best fighter' chat...)

[:p]

simon

6th November 2003, 16:50

Hey, nothing wrong with a bit of controversy so I'll follow this OT for a while...

OK the T-34 was a war winning weapon, no doubt about it, available in huge numbers and superior to pretty much everything in service anywhere apart from the Tiger and King Tiger. But to go back to what I originally said: "...no single device or weapon actually won the war on it's own..."

This is no less true with the T-34 than with anything else. Even with it's superiority over numbers, without the Red Army Air Force to provide close support and fighter cover, infantry to protect against enemy Panzergrenadiers, artillery to soften up bunkers and provide counter-battery fire, engineers to bridge rivers, mechanics to service them and transports to bring up spares and ammunition the T-34 would have been virtually useless. Therefore although a war winning weapon, it could not and did not win the war on the Eastern front by itself.

You could follow this through with any of the war winning weapons. Aircraft carriers, even with it's air contingent, would be extremely vulnerable to surface ships and submarines (HMS Gloucester vs the KMS Scharnhorst for a classic example). Even the P-51 Mustang would only have been any use providing the bombers were there to escort in the first place.

This is why I am (possibly unfairly) disparaging of sweeping statements like: "...IF THE ME262 WAS MADE ERLIER (Sic) IN THE WAR IT COULD OF BEEN A DIFFERENT STORY FOR THE GERMANS...", especially where the poster makes no effort to back up their statements.

However like I have also said, I stand ready to be corrected, so if anyone cares to back up this statement, or even contradict me on the subject of the T-34, go ahead, I eagrely await anyone's responses on this, or anything else I've said... ;)

Oh, and anyone who lives in the UK, I'd recommend getting a copy of this month's Flypast, because there's a good article about how Mustangs dealt with Me262s, read that and try and tell me they still could have won!

Ricky

10th November 2003, 18:23

Hmm, I was hoping for a slightly less comprehensive answer that I could argue against...

Still, if one sees a war-winning weapon as one which, when operated within the existing framework of the armed forces, is so startlingly effective that it bowls over the enemy...

;)

tenmmike

11th November 2003, 12:26

simon ill give ya a small argument but in whole i believe you are correct..........the t-34/76 was inferior to the panther( other than manouverbility which you have failed to reconise ( the panther) and was to be the main production tank..the the t-34 /85 was a improvment but still a little less than the panther (optics,gun,armour quality) the t-34 and panther continued to improve HOWEVER as a single weapone platform over all the t-34 was the most single effective platforme out.(if volume can be included). the main problome is that panther prodution was scheduled to increase while all other marks to decrease (as a %) but not to the point of competition of either ussr or usa the panther II was on the boards with a 88mm..BUTas oposed the the air the panzer corp was on the verge of falling far behind the allies in technolegy/design as the US had some nice vehicals coming on board with stabilised guns and panther =+ armor..the russians were fixing within a month or 2 of VE day to field what i think is one of the most significant tanks out (js-3) a fantastic shape= armour only problem being cramped and piss poor rate of fire but outstanding armour and shape and a huge main gun.

simon

13th November 2003, 05:19

I'll deal with you dissenters both at the same the time. ;)

OK, I never disputed there is such thing as a war winning weapon, and there are several examples that spring easily to mind, the aircraft carrier, the P-51 Mustang, the long range strategic bomber, and of course the T-34. All of which in the framework of their relative spheres of operation and command and control structures were, to say the least highly influential and possibly turned the tide of the war in the Allies favour, however to go back to my original statement; "no single device or weapon actually won the war on it's own". And this still holds true.

With specific regard to the T-34 and Panther, yes it was an oversight that I neglected to mention the Panther, although many regard the Panther as little more than a German built T-34. However the T-34 was also vastly to superior to its German counterparts including the Panther in reliability, not least of which in terms of it's engine. It's no good having a technically superior tank, if it's stuck 100 miles from the front having its engine fixed! Also I believe, although I'm not a total treadhead and tanks are far from my specialist subject, but the Panther was petrol powered and the T-34 was a diesel, so the German tank was more flammable than the Russian. Even if I'm incorrect on the fuel, I'm pretty certain the Panther had more than an undeserved reputation for brewing up easily!

Ricardo1174

13th November 2003, 08:59

Between the following single-seat/engine fighter...which one was the best in a dogfight? why?

1- REPUBLIC P-47 THUNDERBOLT
2- YAK 9
3- FW190D-9
4- P-51 MUSTANG
5- SPITFIRE MK XIV

[?]

tenmmike

13th November 2003, 11:41

i pick the la -7 or ki-84 for df.. the p-51 and p-47 have no buesness in a dog fighting ring they are very good b and z..boom and zoom fighters

simon

13th November 2003, 17:05

Well, personally I'd pick the Spitfire MkXIV out of those choices (No Surprises there then! ;)).

It had a good turn, a good climb, excellent guns and could outrun everything else so if you got into trouble you could just put your nose down and run.

My guess is that you're asking a sort of hypothetical "You both miraculously appear simultaneously at Xft and X-miles appart, what aircraft would you chose".

Tenmike, ignoring the fact that the two you picked weren't in the list, who said it had to be a turning dogfight? All Ricardo said was a dogfight and if the pilot wants to boom and zoom into and out of the dogfight that's probably a wise decision!

tenmmike

13th November 2003, 18:24

i was wrote.......Tenmike, ignoring the fact that the two you picked weren't in the list, who said it had to be a turning dogfight,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i tenmmike write i thought the very word dogfight ment turn and burn.. p51/p47 were not ment to do this the russians and japaneses were the the dog fighters ,,the brits the US and the germans were boom and zoom planes.... plane and simple.. you dont take your 109 g6as or even your k4 and try to turn with a hot rod la-7.below 4000m you will loose .this is from a big ta 152 guy

simon

13th November 2003, 18:34

I always think of the definition of a dogfight as an engagement between two or more hostile fighter aircraft, but I guess a classic WWI style dogfight would be a turning engagement.

Corsarius

13th November 2003, 18:55

A good dogfighter?

Fiat CR-42 Falco
Gloster Gladiator

Points to example of 3 Maltese gladiators staving off the Regia Aeronautica day after day, by dint of being able to out-turn them.

Does anyone have kill ratios (if at all possible) for Faith, Hope and Charity?

CAPILATUS

15th November 2003, 09:54

Hi, all! It's my favorite topic!

In a dogfight I would prefer:

1-LA7

2-P39, though a few Russian ACes in WWII crashed due a trend of p39 to stall. Good fighter, good observability from the cock

3-F190 D-3 - just because of weapon

Were considered just the fighters involved to the Easten front's battles. And I tested them in Simulator IL-2. It really reflect I've ever read about thouse fighters.
RMK Have not tested Spitfire and Mustang (I wish!!!)
IL-2 NOT a game - try, you'll be surprised!

robert

15th November 2003, 13:59

What a great thread! I've had a really good time reading everyone's opinions. One thing that seems to be missing is a definition of "best". By best do we mean the aircraft with the best performance on paper, the aircraft with the best combat record, or a combination of both? Do we look at an aircraft's entire history (i.e. Spitfire), or do we look at only one variant (i.e Spitfire Mk.IX)? One has to know what the criteria are before trying to form an opinion.

Taking into account everything, looking at the complete history of an aircraft, giving points to being on the winning side, and limiting it only to those types that saw significant combat (discounting the Me 262, Ta 152, F8F, MB.5, La-9, or Meteor, among others), I'd rank the greatest fighters of WW2 as follows:

1. Supermarine Spitfire. Had more effect on the air war, in more places, over more time, than any other aircraft. In the air-to-air short range fighter role, the most formidable piston-engined fighter in the world in 1940, and arguably still the most formidable piston-engined fighter in the world in 1945.

2. North American P-51 Mustang. The aircraft that ensured the success of the American daylight bomber offensive (after the P-47 had established air-superiority), and the best long-range escort fighter of the war.

3. Yakovlev Yak-9. One has to remember that the Luftwaffe suffered 62% of its losses on the Eastern Front - to exclude the Soviet fighters would be unthinkable. The Yak-9 was the most widely produced Soviet fighter of the war, and so probably accounted for more Axis aircraft than any other Allied fighter.

4. Grumman F6F Hellcat. The fighter that established US air superiority in the Pacific, the F6F shot down more than twice as many Japanese aircraft than any other fighter. Its kill ratio of 19.2-to-1 in US Navy/USMC service speaks for itself.

5. Messerschmitt Bf 109. Shot down more aircraft than any other plane in history. The Fw 190 was probably a "better" fighter, but the Bf 109 accomplished more.

6. Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Probably the best fighter in the world upon its introduction to service, the Fw 190 remained in the top rank until the end of the war. Could easily be ranked as high as second.

7. Hawker Hurricane. The most underrated aircraft of the war, and the most versatile single-seater, the Hurricane shot down more Axis aircraft than any other Anglo-American type. Served as an interceptor, night fighter, naval fighter, ground attack aircraft, and with two 40mm cannon, a tank-buster.

8. Mitsubishi A6M Zero. The Hellcat from 1943 onward outclassed it, but the A6M was the single weapon most responsible for the early Japanese victories. The first naval fighter to be better than almost any other contemporary land-based fighter.

9. Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. A devastating fighter-bomber, the P-47 was responsible for 72% of the bomb tonnage dropped by USAAF fighters in the ETO/MTO. And as an escort fighter, it was the P-47, not the P-51, which first established air superiority over the Reich.

10. Lavochkin La-5/7. By putting a radial engine on the LaGG-3, Lavochkin engineers created one of the two Soviet fighter mainstays. Top Allied ace Ivan Kozhedub scored all 62 of his kills flying Lavochkin radials.

The two great fighters that couldn't crack the top ten are the Chance Vought F4U Corsair and Yakovlev Yak-3; they had some very impressive points in their favor, but the other ten were clearly greater, IMHO.

The choice of the Spitfire over the Mustang seems pretty clear to me. The Spitfire had more effect on the air war, over a longer period of time, over more fronts, with more air arms, than any other fighter, and was still the best short-range air-superiority fighter in widespread service in 1945. However, since the idea (I would say myth, but I'm trying to be diplomatic) of the Mustang's superiority is so prevalent, I feel I need to explain my choice. Whoo boy, where do I start?

I also wish to state that there's no "winner" or "loser" when comparing the Spitfire and Mustang - like comparing, say, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams, or the Beatles and Rolling Stones, there are only two winners.

I think everybody can agree that the P-51 was the best escort fighter of the war, and that it played a significant role in the success of the US daylight bomber offensive during 1944/45. My question is, would that automatically make it the best fighter of the war? The role of short-range air superiority fighter was just as valid as that of long-range escort, and the late-model Spits were clearly better than the P-51 in that regard. I don't dislike or disrespect the Mustang; I think it was a truly great fighter, one of the three best of all time. But the Spitfire was better in every aspect except range. There's also the question of the role of the aircraft in the service for which it was designed. Exactly why would the RAF need a long-range fighter when they had no long-range daylight bombers to protect? To give the Mustang credit for having a significantly greater range is a valid point, but there's also the fact that the RAF didn't regard range as a particularly important consideration for a single-seat fighter.

Many people compare the P-51D to the Spitfire IX, on which the Mustang comes out slightly ahead, but that's comparing a fighter that entered service in July 1942 to one that entered service in May 1944, which is a lifetime in WW2 fighter development. The correct comparison is not the Spit IX to the P-51D; it's the Spit XIV to the P-51D. The Spitfire XIV actually entered service in January 1944, five months before the P-51D. It was faster than the Mustang, had a better rate of roll and tighter turning circle, had a higher service ceiling, and could climb better. It was superior to the P-51D in EVERY combat category except range, and the only way that came into play in a dogfight is if the P-51 could fly around long enough for the Spit to run out of fuel!

Some quotes:

William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."

Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death."

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book "JG 54": "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers."

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice."

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..."

USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."

Author Francis K. Mason, talking about fighter development during the early war years, when Britain stood alone, in "Royal Air Force Fighters of World War Two, Volume One: "It was [Britain's] fighters that won the admiration of the world, above all her incomparable Spitfire. It was this agony of survival that lent urgency to fighter design and gave Britain a two-year lead, a lead that was not seriously challenged by America until 1947."

I could go on and on, but you get the point. While many pilots considered the P-51 exceedingly valuable because of its increased range, I've yet to see one pilot whom I respect who regards the Mustang as a better pure fighter than the Spitfire.

The argument for the P-51 hinges on its effect on the air war over Europe in 1944/45. This was a considerable achievement, and deserves respect. But as several people have pointed out, the P-47 was doing an excellent job as an escort fighter before the P-51 was even used in that role. Taken as a whole, the Spitfire's combat record was more valuable. It served from the first day of the war until the last; the Merlin Mustang didn't come into service until the Spitfire had been fighting superbly for over four years. The Spitfire was a first line fighter for three times the amount of time as the P-51 (the Allison-Mustangs, while fine recce and close-support aircraft, weren't really first-line fighters except in China). That's a lot of ground to make up, and I don't think the P-51 came that close. I simply don't think that the Mustang contributed as much to winning the war, and the fact that the Mustang never seriously threatened the Spitfire as a pure fighter puts the icing on the cake.

It all depends on whether you think the P-51's role over Germany was more important than the Spitfire's similar role on a half-dozen occasions over Dunkirk, Southern England, Northern Europe, North Africa, Italy, Australia, the CBI, and yes, even over the D-Day invasion beaches. Its shipboard version, the Seafire, although it certainly doesn't rank with the Hellcat or Zero as a pure naval fighter, is considered by the leading naval aviation authority of the war as "unquestionably the finest low-level naval fighter the Allies produced" (Barrett Tillman, "Hellcat Aces of World War Two".) Not to mention that over 1,000 Spitfires served on the Eastern front with the Soviets. The P-51 Mustang was the best long-range escort fighter of WW2. The Spitfire, when all is considered, was the best overall fighter.

tenmmike

17th November 2003, 06:05

robert
that was a nice post i do dispute your ranking order but thats ok.. still a good post...and im not goimg to argue with ya as im hung over [8D]

ickysdad

18th November 2003, 08:54

62% of luftwaffe losses on eastern Front? They lost 88,000 a/c in the war ,57,000 in the West,about 5,000 in the East,and 26,000 operational.Sources:Luftwaffe Fighter Planes & Aces.

Intruder

19th November 2003, 04:32

Excellent post. As you have done, one needs to seperate the qualities that makes an overall "best" fighter design from simply the best escort fighter, interceptor, ground attack, etc. Depending on what qualities you are looking for the interpretation of "best" can vary.

However even the Allies own comparisons (as previously mentioned) came down to the Spitfire XIV and P-51D for pure dogfighting ability.
One type that could be added to your list might be the Tempest V, a very hot ship, respected by the Luftwaffe and determined by the Allies in these same AFDU tests as the best dogfighter under 20,000 ft.

quote:Originally posted by robert

What a great thread! I've had a really good time reading everyone's opinions. One thing that seems to be missing is a definition of "best". By best do we mean the aircraft with the best performance on paper, the aircraft with the best combat record, or a combination of both? Do we look at an aircraft's entire history (i.e. Spitfire), or do we look at only one variant (i.e Spitfire Mk.IX)? One has to know what the criteria are before trying to form an opinion.

Taking into account everything, looking at the complete history of an aircraft, giving points to being on the winning side, and limiting it only to those types that saw significant combat (discounting the Me 262, Ta 152, F8F, MB.5, La-9, or Meteor, among others), I'd rank the greatest fighters of WW2 as follows:

1. Supermarine Spitfire. Had more effect on the air war, in more places, over more time, than any other aircraft. In the air-to-air short range fighter role, the most formidable piston-engined fighter in the world in 1940, and arguably still the most formidable piston-engined fighter in the world in 1945.

2. North American P-51 Mustang. The aircraft that ensured the success of the American daylight bomber offensive (after the P-47 had established air-superiority), and the best long-range escort fighter of the war.

3. Yakovlev Yak-9. One has to remember that the Luftwaffe suffered 62% of its losses on the Eastern Front - to exclude the Soviet fighters would be unthinkable. The Yak-9 was the most widely produced Soviet fighter of the war, and so probably accounted for more Axis aircraft than any other Allied fighter.

4. Grumman F6F Hellcat. The fighter that established US air superiority in the Pacific, the F6F shot down more than twice as many Japanese aircraft than any other fighter. Its kill ratio of 19.2-to-1 in US Navy/USMC service speaks for itself.

5. Messerschmitt Bf 109. Shot down more aircraft than any other plane in history. The Fw 190 was probably a "better" fighter, but the Bf 109 accomplished more.

6. Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Probably the best fighter in the world upon its introduction to service, the Fw 190 remained in the top rank until the end of the war. Could easily be ranked as high as second.

7. Hawker Hurricane. The most underrated aircraft of the war, and the most versatile single-seater, the Hurricane shot down more Axis aircraft than any other Anglo-American type. Served as an interceptor, night fighter, naval fighter, ground attack aircraft, and with two 40mm cannon, a tank-buster.

8. Mitsubishi A6M Zero. The Hellcat from 1943 onward outclassed it, but the A6M was the single weapon most responsible for the early Japanese victories. The first naval fighter to be better than almost any other contemporary land-based fighter.

9. Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. A devastating fighter-bomber, the P-47 was responsible for 72% of the bomb tonnage dropped by USAAF fighters in the ETO/MTO. And as an escort fighter, it was the P-47, not the P-51, which first established air superiority over the Reich.

10. Lavochkin La-5/7. By putting a radial engine on the LaGG-3, Lavochkin engineers created one of the two Soviet fighter mainstays. Top Allied ace Ivan Kozhedub scored all 62 of his kills flying Lavochkin radials.

The two great fighters that couldn't crack the top ten are the Chance Vought F4U Corsair and Yakovlev Yak-3; they had some very impressive points in their favor, but the other ten were clearly greater, IMHO.

The choice of the Spitfire over the Mustang seems pretty clear to me. The Spitfire had more effect on the air war, over a longer period of time, over more fronts, with more air arms, than any other fighter, and was still the best short-range air-superiority fighter in widespread service in 1945. However, since the idea (I would say myth, but I'm trying to be diplomatic) of the Mustang's superiority is so prevalent, I feel I need to explain my choice. Whoo boy, where do I start?

I also wish to state that there's no "winner" or "loser" when comparing the Spitfire and Mustang - like comparing, say, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams, or the Beatles and Rolling Stones, there are only two winners.

I think everybody can agree that the P-51 was the best escort fighter of the war, and that it played a significant role in the success of the US daylight bomber offensive during 1944/45. My question is, would that automatically make it the best fighter of the war? The role of short-range air superiority fighter was just as valid as that of long-range escort, and the late-model Spits were clearly better than the P-51 in that regard. I don't dislike or disrespect the Mustang; I think it was a truly great fighter, one of the three best of all time. But the Spitfire was better in every aspect except range. There's also the question of the role of the aircraft in the service for which it was designed. Exactly why would the RAF need a long-range fighter when they had no long-range daylight bombers to protect? To give the Mustang credit for having a significantly greater range is a valid point, but there's also the fact that the RAF didn't regard range as a particularly important consideration for a single-seat fighter.

Many people compare the P-51D to the Spitfire IX, on which the Mustang comes out slightly ahead, but that's comparing a fighter that entered service in July 1942 to one that entered service in May 1944, which is a lifetime in WW2 fighter development. The correct comparison is not the Spit IX to the P-51D; it's the Spit XIV to the P-51D. The Spitfire XIV actually entered service in January 1944, five months before the P-51D. It was faster than the Mustang, had a better rate of roll and tighter turning circle, had a higher service ceiling, and could climb better. It was superior to the P-51D in EVERY combat category except range, and the only way that came into play in a dogfight is if the P-51 could fly around long enough for the Spit to run out of fuel!

Some quotes:

William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."

Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death."

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book "JG 54": "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers."

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice."

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..."

USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."

Author Francis K. Mason, talking about fighter development during the early war years, when Britain stood alone, in "Royal Air Force Fighters of World War Two, Volume One: "It was [Britain's] fighters that won the admiration of the world, above all her incomparable Spitfire. It was this agony of survival that lent urgency to fighter design and gave Britain a two-year lead, a lead that was not seriously challenged by America until 1947."

I could go on and on, but you get the point. While many pilots considered the P-51 exceedingly valuable because of its increased range, I've yet to see one pilot whom I respect who regards the Mustang as a better pure fighter than the Spitfire.

The argument for the P-51 hinges on its effect on the air war over Europe in 1944/45. This was a considerable achievement, and deserves respect. But as several people have pointed out, the P-47 was doing an excellent job as an escort fighter before the P-51 was even used in that role. Taken as a whole, the Spitfire's combat record was more valuable. It served from the first day of the war until the last; the Merlin Mustang didn't come into service until the Spitfire had been fighting superbly for over four years. The Spitfire was a first line fighter for three times the amount of time as the P-51 (the Allison-Mustangs, while fine recce and close-support aircraft, weren't really first-line fighters except in China). That's a lot of ground to make up, and I don't think the P-51 came that close. I simply don't think that the Mustang contributed as much to winning the war, and the fact that the Mustang never seriously threatened the Spitfire as a pure fighter puts the icing on the cake.

It all depends on whether you think the P-51's role over Germany was more important than the Spitfire's similar role on a half-dozen occasions over Dunkirk, Southern England, Northern Europe, North Africa, Italy, Australia, the CBI, and yes, even over the D-Day invasion beaches. Its shipboard version, the Seafire, although it certainly doesn't rank with the Hellcat or Zero as a pure naval fighter, is considered by the leading naval aviation authority of the war as "unquestionably the finest low-level naval fighter the Allies produced" (Barrett Tillman, "Hellcat Aces of World War Two".) Not to mention that over 1,000 Spitfires served on the Eastern front with the Soviets. The P-51 Mustang was the best long-range escort fighter of WW2. The Spitfire, when all is considered, was the best overall fighter.

ickysdad

19th November 2003, 09:07

P-51D's were operational in mid-1944,but they entered production in late '43,maybe September? October? Remember the US had to ship it's fighters,maintenance teams,ect. over to Europe before they became operational.However that Merlin engine was great in both planes,so maybe we ought to give the "best" award to the engine both used and all us USAAF fans give the British a very well deserved salute!

simon

19th November 2003, 16:20

Unfortunately the Spitfire MkXIV was powered by the Rolls-Royce Griffin... ;), as was the MkXII and all other later built versions.

robert

19th November 2003, 18:03

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

P-51D's were operational in mid-1944,but they entered production in late '43,maybe September? October? Remember the US had to ship it's fighters,maintenance teams,ect. over to Europe before they became operational.However that Merlin engine was great in both planes,so maybe we ought to give the "best" award to the engine both used and all us USAAF fans give the British a very well deserved salute!

The XP-51D prototype didn't fly until November 17, 1943, so the first production models couldn't have been delivered until early 1944, at the earliest. The Spitfire XIV (with the Griffon engine, as somon pointed out) first flew in late spring 1943, the first production one was completed in October, 1943, and they entered service with No. 610 Squadron in January, 1944.

I do have to second your comments about the Mustang being a great example of US/British co-operation - it certainly was!

I strongly disagree with your figures for Luftwaffe losses. Vitalij Popkov, in Hans Seidel's Stalin's Eagles: An Illustrated Study of the Soviet Aces of World War II and Korea notes that the Soviet Air Forces "were responsible for 62% of all aircraft lost by the enemy in the war," which is from where I got the percentage.

The same book gives a total figure of 43,000 aircraft shot down by the Soviet Air Forces during WW2.

Tomas Polak and Christopher Shores' Stalin's Falcons: The Aces of the Red Star notes, "During the course of the war, Soviet fighter pilots claimed approximately 40,000 aerial victories."

Hugh Morgan's Soviet Aces of World War 2 says, "In total, fighter pilots of the VVS claimed over 40,000 Luftwaffe and Finnish aircraft destroyed."

Even when accounting for the normal amount of overclaiming, which happens with fighter pilots rom all countries, that's a lot of aircraft destroyed, and all of my major sources agree on the approximate figure of 40,000. For a point of comparison, USAAF air-to-air fighter claims in the ETO/MTO totalled 10,720, about one-fourth of the Soviet total, and that includes both German and Italian (plus a few Bulgarian, Romanian, etc.) aircraft.

ickysdad

20th November 2003, 01:22

The Allies claimed 57,000 a/c shot down during the war which is backed up by the Luftwaffe's records.Back on page 9 is my post on wqho shot down lot.Another thing of interst is that while there were far more Luftwaffe a/c on the eastern front they were mostly bombers.In the west there were twice as many Luftwaffe fighter planes as there were in the east.A good many of the East front losses for the Luftwaffe were operarional due to harsh envoirment.As far as VVS fighters being so good why is that 52% were lost to non-combat reasons?

ickysdad

20th November 2003, 01:27

Go to page 8 & 9 pertaining to VVs fighters.Actually it was 56% lost to non-combat reasons.

Grendel

20th November 2003, 04:25

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Bf 109: One third of the Bf 109s were lost in takeoff / landing accidents due to misalignment of the wheels. Messerschmitt knew this and never fixed it! That's 10,000 fighters written off due to bad landing gear!

Interesting fantasy.

Actually 5 (1500-1600) % of all the built 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

Also note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to practically rebuild even almost completely destroyed airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.

Also, now what exactly was misaligned with 109 undercarriage? Are you basing your claim to a fact or repeating statements, that are not based on fact themselves? Given that it is lumped together with the fantasy "one third of 109s was destroyed" claim, I'd guess you have no clue what you're talking about.

robert

20th November 2003, 06:06

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

The Allies claimed 57,000 a/c shot down during the war which is backed up by the Luftwaffe's records.Back on page 9 is my post on wqho shot down lot.Another thing of interst is that while there were far more Luftwaffe a/c on the eastern front they were mostly bombers.In the west there were twice as many Luftwaffe fighter planes as there were in the east.A good many of the East front losses for the Luftwaffe were operarional due to harsh envoirment.As far as VVS fighters being so good why is that 52% were lost to non-combat reasons?

I agree with your figures regarding Soviet fighter combat/non-combat losses. Stalin's Eagles also gives a figure of 56% for Soviet fighter losses not caused by "enemy action". However, it also states, "The 'losses to enemy action' category covers aircraft known lost to enemy action either in air combat or shot down by flak by but not including the missing in action figures." It also doesn't include losses inflicted on the ground by German aircraft. So when those figures are added, presumably the figure would be a bit lower. I do agree, however, that the figure is considerably higher than the equivalent USAAF figure in the ETO/MTO, which would be 32.4% of fighter losses to non-combat causes.

I've been going though my books, and surprisingly enough, I can't find an exact breakdown of Luftwaffe losses by theater. But I simply can't accept the figure of only approximately 5,000 Luftwaffe aircraft lost on the Eastern front simply because it contradicts every other figure I've ever seen on the subject. It's as if someone told me that Babe Ruth only hit 93 home runs in his career, instead of 714. What is your source for this? Who is the author? And to be honest, given the fragmentary nature of surviving Luftwaffe records, I'd be more inclined to believe Soviet records released after the breakup of the USSR than the existing Luftwaffe ones.

In addition to being wildly off as regards to Soviet claims, it flies in the face of several other things I've found. For example, the Luftwaffe had 116,891 men killed on the Eastern Front, which would be a heck of a lot more than 5,000 aircraft. Another source gives Luftwaffe losses on the Eastern front just for the period September 1943 to October 1944 alone at 8,600 aircraft.

I'm not questioning your integrity or honesty, by any means - it's just that when someone tells you that the sun rises in the West, you have to question their sources! :)

ickysdad

20th November 2003, 08:42

Actually I'm thinking somethings wrong with the 5000 figure too.I'm thinking germany produced something like 115,000? A/c during the war.Now 57,000 in the West,5,000 in the East,and 26,000 operational losses adds up to 88,000 .Now take that away from the 115,000??? figure is 27,000 + whatever the size of the Luftwaffe before the war you would get a Luftwaffe something like 30,000 a/c at the end of the war,NO WAY! Anyway my source for the 5,000 figure is "Luftwaffe Fighter Planes & Aces" edited by Joe Christy.I think it's a very good book,but it does state the Soviet's claimed about 40,000 so I can accept that.Maybe the 5,000 figure is simply air to air between fighters. It also stated the Luftwaffe claimed 35,000 aircraft shot down in the West & 45,000 in the East.Bottom Line? Let's say maybe 57,000 Luftwaffe a/c downed in the West and 40,000+ in the East,either way I'm just saying that 63% of thier losses weren't in the East.On top of those 57,000 "West" & 40,000+ "East" let's add that 26,000 operational losses,that totals around 123,000 losses which probably is just about right.Remember to on Allied losses I imagine there was far more AA in the West and more fighters the Luftwaffe had to protect the homeland afterall and allied pilots I assume had to fly much longer sorties.
On the P-51D I knew it was late '43,but wasn't sure which month.I'm just pointing out that the USAAF had to ship thier planes and more importantly maintenance facilities overseas.The other belligerents just literrally had to roll them out of the factories.Also you have to be careful on comparing a/c performance with a long range fighter like the P-51 ,if you just fuel it enough to operate as an interceptor it's a whole different animal compared to when it's fully loaded with fuel & ammo(US escort fighters carried alot more ammo because of thier longer missions).
Tomorrow I plan to order Francis Dean's "America's 100,000".I do have "Soviet Combat Aircraft of World War Two" by Dmitri Gordon and a guy named Khzanov.It's a great book and I hear Dean's book is great too,but expensive!

robert

20th November 2003, 15:17

That makes a lot more sense. The figure I have for German aircraft production 1939-45 is 117,881, which is almost exactly what you have. That doesn't include the number made during the pre-war Luftwaffe buildup that the Ludtwaffe started the war with.

USAAF fighters (air-to-air) in the ETO/MTO had 10,720 kills, with 8,160 more credited on the ground. USAAF bombers claimed 9,889 air kills. I honestly don't know how accurate this latter figure is; I suspect it is somewhat less accurate than the figures for US fighter kills, because in the confusion of the action gunners in several US bombers could claim credit for the same kill, and I don't know how anyone could accurately decide on the exact number of kills in such a situation, even with the best of intentions.

That makes about 29,000, although as I said, it may be a bit high on the bomber claims; when combined with the RAF/Commonwealth numbers, 57,000 might be somewhere in the ballpark.

It is possible that Popkov's 62% figure was just counting air-to-air victories; as he doesn't specifically state so, I don't know!

Also you have to be careful on comparing a/c performance with a long range fighter like the P-51 ,if you just fuel it enough to operate as an interceptor it's a whole different animal compared to when it's fully loaded with fuel & ammo (US escort fighters carried a lot more ammo because of thier longer missions).

True, but both the RAF and USAAF comparitive tests I quoted used lightly loaded aircraft.

America's Hundred Thousand is a great book, one that you can literally immerse yourself in for hours. I wish I had a copy; I had one for a couple of weeks on an interlibrary loan once, but that's it!
The only negative thing I can say about it is that the proofreading is terrible; there are spelling errors throughout the book, as with many other Schiffer titles. But it's still a great book.

I have both of Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov's volumes of Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, and I wholeheartedly agree that they're fantastic - by far the best books published on the subject in English.

ickysdad

21st November 2003, 08:15

You really can't compare the Spitfire XIV to P-51D for the 2 airforces had different reequiremnets.There were tests done by the RAF right after the war but who was better at what depended on altitude.I know the RAF used Spitfire XIV & Mustang IV in the tests,but I don't know how the Mustang IV corresponds to the P-51D.If you really want to compare the two you would either have to have a long range version of the British plane or a interceptor version of the P-51 say the "K" or "H" versions.The P-47J was an interceptor version of that airplane.The Merlin engined P-38K would have been outstanding,IMHO. Just shows you can't every quality into one airplane.
Why not compare the P-51B/C which 1st. flew in October,1942 to the Spitfire IX which flew in (/42????,not for sure when you said that version of the Spitfire. 1st. flew.

The Supermarine Spitfire
Versus
The North American Aviation Mustang
By David Marjoram, UK

To understand the Spitfire, we thought it would be a good idea to compare the Spitfire with another allied fighter the P-51 Mustang.

The variants that are going to be compared are the Spitfire MK IX and the Mustang P-51c. The reason for choosing these two variants is that the Merlin in the Spitfire MK IX, and the Packard version in the Mustang are about the same size, and horsepower (around 1550 h.p.).

It is well known now that the original Allison engine that was fitted to the early Mustang was good up to 15.000 feet but then performance fell away rapidly. That is why its engine was replaced by a Packard Merlin. So to compare the Spitfire to an Allison engined Mustang would do the Mustang no justice.

Build Quality

When looking at the two aircraft, the advance build immediately strikes you standard that the Americans achieved with the P-51. Although the P-51 was designed and built in a very short time, the Americans were not at war in this period and therefore were not suffering shortages etc. The Spitfire MK IX was designed and built in the middle of the war, so corners were going to be cut in its design and construction, as shortages must have affected its build quality.

Weight

The build quality also effected the weight of these two aircraft. Although the Mustang is a slightly larger aircraft (see specifications), it tipped the scales at a fully loaded 11.600Lb, to the Spitfire 9500Lb fully loaded.

A68-198 now fly's as 415622 AJ-T,
the plane that American ace Richard E. Turner flew during WW II. © SIW. Photo:
Herman de Ridder

Performance

The Mustang extra 2000Lb greatly affected its performance. The Spitfire could out climb and out maneuver the Mustang. In a dogfight, the Mustang could never live with a Spitfire. The spitfire has longer travel on the ailerons, rudder and elevator and could therefore achieve maneuvers that the Mustang could never achieve. Also because of the extra weight, the Mustang has to carry allot of energy on the airframe during maneuvers. If that energy is lost it can’t recover as quickly as the Spitfire. The only place that the Mustang wins over the Mustang is in maximum speed, 437 M.P.H. for the Mustang and 408 M.P.H. for the Spitfire. Even though it is 2000Lb. heavier, it is nearly 30 M.P.H. faster; this is down to aerodynamics. It is known that the Spitfire has a lot of drag through the engine cooling system. The Mustang underwent a lot of work in the cooling system to rectify an overheating problem in the development stage. The engineers cured this problem by improved airflow through the cooling system. A by-product of this was better aerodynamics and less drag and therefore better top speed. The mustang’s engine also warms up slower. The Spitfire can run very hot on a warm day on a long taxi before getting airborne.

Range

It is the range that set these two aircraft apart. The range of the Spitfire was about 450miles; the range of the Mustang with drop tanks was 2000 miles. The Spitfire could carry a drop tank but its wings couldn’t support the weight of a drop tank that could give it a range of 2000 miles. It was the range of these two fighters that destined their roles. The Spitfire became an interceptor fighter to intercept bombers and fighters escorts (and later on the V-1’s) over Britain and also to take part in short sorties over the channel. The mustang role became that of long-range escort. Up until the Mustang, the bombers had to be left far from their targets and then became easy prey for the German fighters. But with the Mustangs long range they could escort the bombers all the way to, and back from their targets. The Mustangs presence saved many bombers and their crews. It is also known that the Germans knew the war was lost when allied fighters were seen over Berlin.

This Spitfire MKIX MJ730 flew after the war with
the Italian and Israeli Air Force. © SIW. Photo:
Herman de Ridder

Armament

The armament of the two aircraft were quite different, the Spitfire had 20 mm Hispano cannons that where very effective and carried considerable punching power, also the Spitfire had four .303 inch browning machineguns, they were effective against non armored aircraft. But lacking the punching power against armor plating, so the pilots mostly used the cannons. The Mustang didn’t carry cannons, but had six of the more powerful .50 inch Browning machine guns. That could punch through armored plating better and cause more damage.

Those are the main differences between the two fighters, two very similar aircraft that carried out two very different roles, owing to their range.

Supermarine Spitfire MK IX
North American P-51 Mustang

Type
Single engine fighter
Single engine fighter

Engine
R.R. Merlin
Packard Merlin

Wingspan
11.2m (36ft 10inch)
11.29m (37ft)

Lenght
9.1m (29ft 11inch)
9.81m (32ft 3inch)

Height
3.5m (11ft 5inch)
4.1m (13ft 8inch)

Max speed
408 M.P.H.
437 M.P.H.

Service ceiling
40.000 ft
41.900 ft

Maw range
434 miles
2000 miles with drop tanks

Armament
2x20mm cannons, 4x.303 mach.guns
6x.50 machine guns

robert

21st November 2003, 09:19

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

You really can't compare the Spitfire XIV to P-51D for the 2 airforces had different reequiremnets.There were tests done by the RAF right after the war but who was better at what depended on altitude.I know the RAF used Spitfire XIV & Mustang IV in the tests,but I don't know how the Mustang IV corresponds to the P-51D.If you really want to compare the two you would either have to have a long range version of the British plane or a interceptor version of the P-51 say the "K" or "H" versions.The P-47J was an interceptor version of that airplane.The Merlin engined P-38K would have been outstanding,IMHO. Just shows you can't every quality into one airplane.
Why not compare the P-51B/C which 1st. flew in October,1942 to the Spitfire IX which flew in (/42????,not for sure when you said that version of the Spitfire. 1st. flew.

The Mustang IV was simply the RAF name for the P-51D & K; both the D & K were called Mustang IVs in RAF service. The P-51B & C were known by the RAF as the Mustang III.

The problem I have with comparing the P-51B with the Spitfire IX is twofold. First, that they're still basically two different generations of fighter. The Spitfire IX first flew on February 26, 1942, and entered service with No. 64 Squadron in June 1942. The XP-51B wasn't flown until November 30, 1942, and the first production P-51B didn't fly until May 5, 1943. So even if you disregard that it took until October 1943 for the first aircraft to reach England, and December until the 354th FG took them into action, there's still a year's difference between the two designs - and in WW2 terms, that's a lifetime. The Spitfire XIV flew in spring 1943, and entered service in January 1944, making it much more of a contemporary of the P-51B than the Spitfire IX.

Secondly, a large part of my reason for preferring the Spitfire XIV over the P-51D is that it had the Griffon engine rather than the Merlin. To a very large extent, it was the Griffon that provided the performance superiority over the P-51; by comparing a Merlin Spit to the P-51D, my whole point would be lost!

ickysdad

21st November 2003, 11:08

Too bad the NA73 didn't have the Merlin installed in say 1941 or at least the Allison engined versions didn't get the Merlin sooner.I agree about the timelines bit,but what I'm saying is the P-51B probably could have reached production status much sooner if it wasn't for having to setup Merlin production in the US.The Allison engines really weren't that bad.In the P-40 prototype it was turbo-charged if the production models would have retained that feature the P-40 would have been a real winner.The P-39 when 1st. flown could reach 390 MPH and climb at 4000' per minute ,in 1939 that was exceptional,but then they dropped the turbocharging so they could save tungsten supplies for the engines on the bombers..The RAF test I was talking about used the Mustang III not the IV.
Remember to and it's the main reason I like the USAAF fighters so much is versatility ,those P-38's,P-47's,P-51's,F4U's, and F6F's could really carry the bombs.Actually IMHO the P-51 isn't even the best US fughter,the P-47 is and those "M" & "N" versions were superb.Have you ever heard of the P-47J interceptor model? The Merlin engined P-38? the P-51H predecessor P-51G(lightwieght fighter that could have been readt in mid-'44????)? Alas the USAAF wanted multi-capability fighters not interceptors.
One question though,the P-51B was 1st. flown in October,1942 and used a current engine how can it be considered a totally different design generation compared to the Spitfire IX(which 1st. flew in Feburary,42) and it used the same airframe from the prototype in late '40(NA-73)?

simon

24th November 2003, 23:35

Just to stick my oar in and hopefully muddy the waters somewhat, personally I don't even consider the first flight dates of the aircraft, the significant dates are the service dates because these are the date's they effectively became available.

I agree completely that if you are to compare Mustang and Spitfires the MkXIV and P-51D are the fairest models to compare. For a start and perhaps most significantly to me they have fairly close service entry dates. Yes, most Mustang proponents will argue that the P-51 had greater range, but the range of the P-51C even in Spring 1943 was irrelevant because most of them were in factories on continental USA, so to compare the P-51B/C to the MkIX is unfair as the MkIX had been fighting for well over a year before operational P-51B's took off from their squadron bases.

As I've said elsewhere the MkXIV with the centreline tank actually had a range approaching that of the P-51D without droptanks, and as I will repeat Droptanks are far less significant than most people appreciate as the first thing pilots would do on combat would be to drop them, therefore taking a base from Kent in England to the German/Dutch Border you are gaining maybe 400 miles. Droptanks on the Spitfire added about 300 miles, so the Mustangs with their tanks have an effective advantage of only 150 miles on the Spitfire. A bit less than the 1,550 miles quoted!

Additionally the armament of the MkXIVE which was the main armament fit was 2 .50 cal Brownings and 2 20mm Hispanos, so the logic that the .303s were not used as they were ineffective (Which is something I haven't read anywhere else!), doesn't apply.

To me the best piston fighters to reach squadron service were the Griffin Spitfires, the most effective were the P-51Ds because they really nailed down the coffin of the Luftwaffe, the most important I'd say was the Hurricane.

If it weren't for the Hurricane the Battle of Britain would have been lost and Britain would have probably sued for peace. So no Combined Bombing Offensive, no Lend Lease to Russia, no Baltic convoys, and a Nazi Europe...

Just changing the subject and back-tracking on the debate somewhat, Luftwaffe personnel KIA'ed in the East will probably include not just aircrew, but also Flak detachments, groundcrew, Fallschirmjager and later aircrew who were rounded up, given rifles and used as Infantry as thier planes became grounded through lack of fuel. I can't say for certain, as I haven't read your sources, but these would certainly explain the figures for the Luftwaffe Losses without having aircraft that had 200 crewmembers each!

ickysdad

25th November 2003, 06:53

But it's not fair to the USAAF to use in service dates as opposed to when they went into production because of thier having to ship everything overseas.If you want to argue impact on the war then I see your point however if your comparing one airfirce's design prowess to another's then you must use when they entered production. As a pure dogfighter or interceptor I agree the Spitfire gets the nod,however if you go further into multi-purpose role then it gets more complicated.Good point on personnel losses on the Eastern Front.
One more point on "best fighter" ,I've read several accounts that pilots shot down never seen the fighter shooting them down.In other words who saw whom first had a huge advantage even if they were using a 1942 Bf. 109G against a 1944 Spitfire IX or P-51D.That brings up another point on USAAF fighters the P-51 resembled the Me. 109 and the P-47 resembled the FW-190 and I've read before that RAF pilots joined homeward flying Luftwaffe pilots in '109's thinking they were P-51's!

simon

25th November 2003, 16:51

Who saw who first was the main factor from the start of aerial warfare with powered aircraft, that's why fighters always tried to attack high and from the sun, so it doesn't really matter whether you consider 1944, 1942 or 1918!

OK, point taken about production though really that throws in a whole new batch of aircraft because the likes of the Do335 actually entered production, even if it never reached the Jagd Geschwader. I appreciate that supply lines for the US certainly were an issue, however I still maintain that no matter how well designed an aircraft if it didn't reach its service units in time, it's no use to anyone.

As for the Spitfire being a pure interceptor again I disagree, they could and did carry a fair bomb load and rockets, and could do bomber escort if needed by the MkXIV series. The thing was they just weren't generally needed, the Mustang's were already doing bomber escort, Tempests, Typhoons and Thunderbolts were already doing the ground attack, so Spitfires stuck to doing what they did best, taking out enemy fighters.

DazDaMan

27th November 2003, 22:55

As it happens, the Spitfire was used increasingly in the ground attack role towards the end of the war. Spitfire IXs, XIVs and XVIs carrying rockets and/or bombs of up to 1,000lbs.

ickysdad

28th November 2003, 06:03

But the P-51 & P-47 could both carry 2000 lbs. or more farther and were generaly considered to be tougher to shoot down especally the "Jug".After the war the British themselves done a series of tests which had the following aircraft Spitfire XIV,Mustand III(P-51B),Tempest V,Tempest II,P-47C,Meteor III,Spitifre models XXI,IX,XVI.AS Follows...(remember the P-47C & P-51B aren't the best models either.)
Speed.....(ranked as in order but no specific speed)
Sea Level...MeteorIII, Tempest II, Tempest V, Spitfire XIV & XXI, (barely barely beating the Mustang III, Spitfire IX & XVI, P-47C,
at 10,000'.....Meteor III,Tempest II, Spitfire XIV & XXI,(barely berating) Tempest V,Mustang III, Spitfire IX & XVI,P-47C,
at 20,000'.....Meteor III,Tempest II & V, Spitfire XIV & XXI,(barely beating the Mustang III,Spitfire IX & XVI,P-47C,
at 30'000'.... Meteor III,Mustang III,Spitfire XIV & XXI,P-47C,

Rate of climb.....(FPM in parenthesis)
Sea Level....Tempest II(4700'), Spitfire(all models 4600'),Tempest V(4000'),Meteor III(3800'),Mustang III(3500'),P-47C(3000')
at 10,000'...Spitfire XIV(4400'),Spitfire IX & XVI(4200'),Tempest II (4100'), Spitfire XXI(4000'),Mustang III(3700'), Meteor III(3400'), P-47C(3000')
at 20,000'....Spitfire XIV(3700'),Spitfire IX & XVI(3600'),Spitfire XXI(3300'),Mustang III(2800'),Tempest II(2500'),Tempest V(2200'),P-47C(2200')
at 30,000'....Spitfire XIV (2400'),Spitfire IX & XVI(2100'),Spitfire XXI(2000'), Mustang III(1900'),P-47C(1500')

range...The British own tests has the Spitfire all models comparing poorly with the Mustang III.

Roll Rate....Between 200-300 MPH the Spitfire is extremely good,but over 300 MPH and especially over 400 MPH it fairs badly with the P-51,P-47,and Tempest V.Against the USAAF planes it gets even worse as altitude increases.

Turning..... Spitfire,Mustang III,Meteor III,Tempest(both models),P-47C though the Sitfire's advantages seem to decrease with both altitude & speed over the USAAF planes.
Diving.....Meteor III,then Tempest(surprise!,surprise!),P-47C, MUstang III,then Spitfires way behind.
In "Duels in the Sky" by Captain Erich Brown he gives the following climb rates... Mustang IV(4000'), Spitfire XIV (4580'),Tempest V( 3750')...In rating the aircraft Brown put the Spitfire XIV up against the Mustang IV(P-51D) he recounted an encounter he had with a FW190 over France and how they both broke it off after awhile and he feels the about the same result could be applied to this matchup they were just so equal to one another..He pointed out that Mustang had far greater range than even the XIV model of the Spitfire. Remember that only about a thousand of the XIV models were turned out according to William Green's "Famous Fighters of World War Two".
I'm not meaning to knock the Spitfire ,but in comparing aircraft I think it's really necessary to look at all factors like the mission type,altitude of engagement.In bomber escort the P-51 would probably be superior because it does have greater range and operates better at the altitudes the bombers fly at.I thought I'd post those British test results just for info purposes I have the files where I can e-mail them if anybody wants.
A Mustang with drop tanks had a range of 2200-2300 miles,a Spitfire XIV about 1500 miles according to Bob Gunston's "Aircraft of World War Two" among some other sources.I just got "America's 100,000" by Francus Dean and I'm going to look over the P-51's load out and see what it's range is with what fuel load,ammo load e,bombload,ect.,ect..

I've also read about the P-51H with V-1650-9 which had 1900 HP,2270 with WEP it achieved 444 MPH at 5000',463 MPH at 15,000',and 487 MPH at 25,000' and could climb at around 5200' per minute using WEP.On Military Power it would get to 15,000' in 4.5 minutes.It wasn't even the last version of the P-51 that would be the P-51L which was designed but never put into production it had a V-1650-11 engine which put out 2270 HP (2400 with WEP).

BuzzLightyear

30th November 2003, 04:45

The F4U-4. It did everything well.

BTW, I'm new. Hi.

mgallun

11th December 2003, 01:07

Iam new too...

TA-152

Corsarius

11th December 2003, 19:57

Hi to our new people, and welcome.

Excellent choices, both of you.

Wolf

16th December 2003, 16:49

My vote for the best fighter would be the P-51, but my favourite are the FW-190D.

Just some comments about the Luftwaffe air losses.
Here are some figures(part of it) from another forum.

Losses recorded by the operational units as "Abgang durch Feindeinwerkung" - losses due to enemy action.

Losses to enemy action for bomber units (Kampfverbaende) roughly by front from March 1942 through December 1944(Eastern/Western) were:
1942 957/826
1943 933/1,164
1944 425/1,326
Losses in Stuka and Schlachtverbaende were:
1942 457/169
1943 905/518
1944 1,237/345
Losses in Zerstroerverbaende were:
1942 178/61
1943 132/182
1944 185/275
Losses in Nachtjaegdeverbaende were:
1942 0/83
1943 23/274
1944 94/1,063
Losses in Jagdverbaende were:
1942 707/536
1943 1,135/2,359
1944 972/6,818
Total losses from units was:
1942 2,299/1,675
1943 3,128/4,497
1944 2,913/9,827

Total for the period March 1942 to December 1944:
8,339 in the East and 15,999 in the West

Losses in the East 22 June-27 September 1941
2,377 all types/all causes

Losses for 1945 are probably very difficult to find out since the definition West and East are hard to find out.

Nice forum BTW

andyo2000

22nd December 2003, 04:36

Obviously, the above figures posted by Wolf show not only that the Allied participation in Europe was increasing, but also that Allied fighters were getting increasingly better and more adept. New improvements to current fighters, like the Spitfire, and new ones, like the P-51, were overwhelmingly better than the previous Allied fighters. Furthermore, the dogfights began to be increasingly one-sided (towards the Allies) as bombing campaigns destroyed any chance of Germany restoring it's once-terrifying industrial power. The best US fighter, undoubtably, was hte P-51. AS a bomber escort, interceptor, even light bomber and reconassaince, it was unmatched by any other US airplane in Europe at that time. As for the UK, the Hawker Hurricane was quite a supplement to the Spitfire. On a side note, the Hurricane was the main victor of the Battle of Britain, as there were 32 Hurrican squadrons compared to 19 Spitfire squadrons. In any case, these 3 fighters more than made up for Russia's obsolete air force, the VVS.

Personally, my favorite fighter in terms of practicality is the P-51D.
My favorite in terms of apperance is the Me-262.

Pulqui

27th January 2004, 19:01

THE BEST FIGHTER OF WWII.
I agree with the man who tested and flew them ALL!! The much respected (on both sides of the Atlantic) Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown.

"Up to mid 1943 the Zero was the best. After that it was a split between the Griffon engined Spits, Fw 190D and the P51" (while maybe keeping an eye on the Yak3)

The Pilots who flew the Zeros certainly didn't feel compromised in their battles against the 'vastly superior' Hellcats and Corsairs and continued to shoot them down (When not overwhelmed by superior numbers) right up to the 'end' including those flown by some notable Aces!

I think the White Anglo Saxon races have great problems in accepting that the little brown man from the East beat them at their own game..."Once we learnt what flimsy things they really were...we had their measure!"

It's a bloody good thing Chudleigh, old boy that the Jerries didn't have a Squadron of these things in France during the of Battle of Britain. Nine hours over Blighty in a cannon armed fighter? Might have caused us a bit of heartburn, what?

Pulqui

28th January 2004, 02:32

Hi all!
It is a complete mystery to me why Merlins were never tried in a P38! Woulda been a hell of a fighter!
Griffons? WOW!
Maybe if jets were later on the scene!

robert

28th January 2004, 05:21

quote:Originally posted by Pulqui

Hi all!
It is a complete mystery to me why Merlins were never tried in a P38! Woulda been a hell of a fighter!
Griffons? WOW!
Maybe if jets were later on the scene!

I copied the following explanation from a web site a while ago, and forgot to note the author. For that I sincerely apologise, and if anyone can tell me who actually wrote it, I'd be grateful. In any event, it gives a good explanation of why Merlins were not used in the P-38.

"The installation of Rolls Royce XX Merlins [in the P-38] was seriously considered. Lockheed went as far as designing the installation package. The advantages of the Merlin engine were numerous. First and foremost was the elimination of the complex turbocharger system. This would also result in a much cleaner engine nacelle. The turbo intercoolers could be removed. That would have allowed for a for more aerodynamic package, closer in shape to that of the original XP-38. Another option was to remove the Prestone radiators and place them under the engine as in the P-40. This location had the additional advantage of reducing the length of the cooling system plumbing. This, in turn, reduced the risk of battle damage to the system. Either option would result in a significant reduction in drag and weight. A further benefit would be gained by the removal of intercooler ducting in the front portion of the outer wings. This volume could be utilized for increased fuel capacity. In fact, that is what was done when the P-38J was designed with revised intercooler cores that eliminated the ducting. This increased internal fuel capacity by 110 gallons.

There were some performance areas that would suffer. While a gain in speed at medium altitudes was expected, the rate of climb would be reduced by as much as 400 feet per minute. Service ceiling would also be reduced as the Packard Merlin XX made considerably less power above 30,000 feet than did the Allison V1710. At the time, no one anticipated the engine and turbocharger problems that developed at high altitude over Europe. Unfortunately, the War Production Board was unwilling to shut down the production line for several months to retool for major design changes required for the engine swap. As a result, the Merlin project was shelved. No P-38 ever flew fitted with Rolls Royce Merlin or Packard engines. The idea of retro-fitting Merlin 61 engines was bantered about 8th Air Force Fighter Command, however there is no evidence that any such conversion ever took place. The prospect of such a modification would have been daunting. This was no simple engine swap, it required large portions of the airframe to be completely redesigned. Stories of Merlin powered Lightnings are, without much doubt, myth."

Pulqui

28th January 2004, 06:34

quote:Originally posted by GregP

I disagree that we're limited to the Spitfire, Bf 109, and Fw 190. You mentioned losses and something amiss. Consider that one third of all Bf 109's ever made were written off in either takeoff or landing accidents ... mostly landing. Yeah, something's amiss ... the 190 might have been very good in the air, but it was a dog of the first magnitude on the ground.

I said the fighters must have been around for a long time, not for the entire war.

The short list must include the Spitfire, Bf 109, Fw 190, P-51, P-47, Hellcat, Corsair, Yaks (3/9), Lavochkins (5/7/9), and probably the Zero.

So, are we chosing the best all-around fighter or just best air-to-air and fighter-to-fighter?

The Spitfire, though a wonderful dogfighter, didn't have the legs to do bomber escort and so wasn't even a factor in escort duty. It didn't drop much bomb tonnage either.

The Bf 109 was a good fighter, but had very short range like the Spit and was abysmal when landing ... lost 10,000 while landing! Tough to choose THAT as the best.

The Zero was supremely maneuverable, but was outclassed from about 1943 on. Near the end of the war the Zero was a deathtrap for the pilot unless he was VERY good at avoiding bullets.

Of the rest, the Hellcat had a kill ratio that was 50% better than the Corsair, and it performed all the duties of a multi-role fighter. In fact, it had the best kill ratio of ANY fighter until the F-15 Eagle. Better than the P-51 and Fw 190. Consider that the Hellcat fought in an ocean environment, and you can see that the opportunities for air-to-air combat were fewer than in Europe on a mission for mission basis.

The greatest allied ace flew a Lavochkin La-5FN most of his career. What we donl;t have is a lot of information about the Lavochkins or the Yaks. The Yak-9U had the best power-to-weight ratio of any WWII fighter at 3.2 pound per HP. The La-5FN/7/9 had 3.7 pounds per HP and were right in the same ballpark, and their wing loading was in the mid 30's.

So, I am left with the Fw 190, P-51, Yaks, or Lavochkins as the main contenders. The power loading of the radial-powered Fw 190's was around 4.5 pounds per HP at half payload, and the wing loading was in the 40 pound per square foot range. The popwer loading of the P-51D was in the 5.4 pounds per HP range at half payload, and the P-51 didn't get into the 4 pounds per HP range until the P-51H, which was very late in the war. The P-51D was in the 39 pounds per square foot range.

Of these, the Fw 190 is remembered as being the fastest-rolling fighter of WWII, so that counts for a lot since the ability to roll away from an opponent before you pull g's will open distance between the aircraft.

Taking all my emotion out of it, I'd have to award the title to either the Fw 190, Yak-3, or La-5/7/9 aricraft, the Hellcat's kill ratio notwithstanding.

The Yaks, though superb aircraft, only had one cannon and 1 or 2 MG's. The La-5FN had two 20 mm cannons. The La-7 had three 20 mm cannons, and the La-9 had four 23 mm cannons.

The most heavily-armed Fw 190 was the early Fw 190 A3 with four 20 mm cannons and two 7.9 mm MG's. Most of the rest of the Fw 190's went to two 20 mm cannons.

None of the Spitfires would go much more than 500 miles one way. Forget the round trip. The P-51 didn't have the guns to compete with the La-9. Ditto the Hellcat and Corsair.

Taking this into account, I give the nod to the Soviet Lavochkin La-9 with four 23 mm cannons, 3.7 pounds per HP power loading, 35.9 pounds per square foot at half payload wing loading, a ceiling of over 37,000 feet, and a useful combat radius of 550 miles or so. Too bad that western pilots didn't have a chance to fly them in combat.

The Fw 190 series was very close to the La-9. It had the same ceiling, was slightly slower, and had about 2/3 the range of the La-9. Armament was close. So ... maybe the order would be Fw 190 and then La-9 ... it's that close.

These picks are stricly from the statistics of the airframes. As we all know, airfoil, propeller airfoil choice, individual rigging of controls, and any number of other things affect the way a plane flies.

I have no pilot-in-command time in any WWII fighter, so my choices are made without being nased on flight in the above-mentioned airframes.

Before you disagree, please rcall that Ivan Kozhedub was the highest-scoring allies ace. He mostly flew the La-5FN, not a P-51 or Spitfire.

If we're talking a beauty contest, then the inlines have it cold. The SPitfire is beautiful. Ditto the Macchi 202, the Regianne 2005, the P-51. Even the Bf 109F is a very pretty aircraft, except for the angular canopy lines.

But for sheer competence as a fighter aircraft, the radial eingined Fw 190 and the La-9 series of fighters are pretty damned hard to beat on an individual basis.

Pete57

29th January 2004, 20:47

Howdy y'all.

New member, and would like to add my personal contribution.

Best all around fighter, irrespective of the type of engine, is, in my opinion, the Lockheed YP-80A Shooting Star.
Its overall performance was very similar to the 262's. The Shooting Star was slightly faster - about 30 kph (18 mph) - climbed faster, 5min 30sec to 20,000ft versus 6min 48sec it took the Schwalbe to reach the same altitude (due, no doubt, to a higher loaded weight) and had possibly a better turning rate.
The 262 had a heavier armament, but this is, in my opinion, a mixed blessing, as proved by the MiG-15s' cannon armament when compared to the F-86s' lighter armament in Korea.
The P-80 had a definite edge over the 262 in engine reliability, which is also a major factor in air combat.
In the delivery to operational units, the Me.262, preceded the P-80 by nine months, but it's a testament to Lockheed's capabilities that such an airplane was designed and built in only 143 days!
So far as purely aesthetical considerations are concerned, well the Me.262 was a beauty, but so was the P-80 (I love the early, Pearl Grey painted ones).
I guess the bottom line here is that 'beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder'.

Great Forum!

simon

30th January 2004, 05:38

An interesting choice, although it could be argued that the P-80 did not actually contribute to the air war at all, I'd say it counts as a WWII fighter, although others may disagree...

Welcome onboard, always good to have a new face to join in the banter.

Corsarius

30th January 2004, 09:12

Hey, nice choice. Interesting and controversial. Just the sort of thing we love here. I'd count it, but then again I also count other things such as the Pfeil and the Kangaroo fighters that others discount. And yes, it was/is a very attractive aircraft. It's like a 'golden rectangle' where everything just fits just right and you look and say 'yeah, that's what a jet fighter should look like'. In my opinion certainly the prettiest american aircraft for many years (because I really really hate the look of early american straight winged jets. Pretty much nearly everything up to the classic beauty of the F-4, but I'll probably find something nice in between and have to revise that statement later).

Oh, and welcome aboard!

CAPILATUS

30th January 2004, 09:47

What thoughts about piston WWII fighters, Pete?

GregP

31st January 2004, 15:19

Hi all,

Back after a short absence. In an earlier page, I quoted a usually-reliable source as saying that the Bf 109 experienced 10,000 losses in takeoff and landing accidents. The source was Corky Meyer in the American publication "Flight Journal."

It appears that Corky was either in error or was misquoted since all the other references I have looked up since that post quote the losses in takeoff and landing accidents as about 1,500 aircraft, or about 5% of Bf 109 production.

So ... I defer to the majority opinion and say that the Bf 109 probably had about a 5% operational loss from gear placement that COULD have been corrected early on in production, but Willy Messerschmitt was too stubborn to acknowledge the fault. Note that it was corrected in later developments like the Me 209 and 309 that never made it into production.

To the person who asked me exactly what was misaligned in the Bf 109 ... I can only say this. I own a 2002 Camaro SS and I autocross once in awhile. You try driving one with a 20° negative camber and THEN ask me what was wrong! The Bf 109 acted in similar fashion when it tilted either left or right from level. The gear placment was abysmal and poorly designed in almost every way. The Bf 109 is almost uncontrollable from hard-surfaced runways and is little better from hard-packed earth. To feel anywhewre NEAR normal, it needs a grass field, preferrably soft earth fresh from a light rain.

In the air, it was an obvious winner since it shot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter ever produced anywhere by anyone, Spitfires, P-51s, and Zeros notwithstanding. So, comments about its lack of proper armament and short range are kind of lame considering its record. Ask Gunther Rall if HE thinks it was weak in any way. With more than 250 victories, he should know.

Anyway, this thread has been fun and instructive.

"Best Fighter" surely must have the specifics of the mission stated before we can really comment.

The consensus seems to be that most people here strongly favor the Spitfire. Good thing these people didn't live in WWII and fly Spits against Japanese fighters! Most of these same people religate the Hellcat as an also-ran fighter even though it DID face the Japanese and won big-time (highest air-to-air kill ratio of any fighter in WWII from any country). It never found an opponent it couldn't master. The Spitfire did in the Zero, which could outturn it and later models could outclimb the Spit. The only aerial thing the Zero coudn't do better was go fast. Armmament is another discussion entirely.

Therefore, it can be argued (at least by me) that the "best" fighter depends almost entirely on what you want to do with it.

Ground attack, bomber escort, photo-recon, fighter vs. fighter one-on-one, fighter vs. fighter mob-on-mob, dive-bombing, strafing, patrol, anti-shipping, pinpoint strike, high-altitude, low-altitude, etc.

Yes, the Spitfire was a great plane and is one of my personal favorites; maybe THE favorite. So were a lot of others great planes. The best depends on the specific mission, the range, the forces arrayed against you, the "luck" of the day, and the mechanical reliability of your steed. Also, your place in the formation might have something to do with it. A wingman might feel much different than a section leader.

All sides and most countries had contenders that warrant serious contention. For instance, the Reggianne Re. 2005 was a fierce opponent, but few were available. The Fiat G.55 and Macchi 205 were also among the best steeds available ... asuming they WERE avilable. Mostly, they weren't.

The VL Pyorremyrsky (Finland) was a VERY serious contender, but only a few were made and only one survives in Finland. Conversely, only one Arado AR 234 Blitz survives (Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum), but it was the best reconaissance platform of WWII and several years beyond. Almost everyone has heard of it. The same cannot be said of the Pyorremyrsky.

This has been and likely will continue to be a fun thread.

C'mon, someone bring forth a new contender.

I nominate the Martin-Baker MB-5, the Commonwealth Ca-15, or the Mitsubishi A7M Reppu. Heck, the Martin-Baker MB-3 would be right in there, too if only it had survived testing.

The best "Almost Made It" would also have to include the Heinkel He 100. Wonder why the Nazis didn't produce it? The only reason I can think of is politics. Everyone in power hated Ernst Heinkel. Seems like the same situation with Jack Northrop in the U.S.A.

Long live the discussion!

Oh yeah, I won't argue too much with any cannon-armed Supermarine Spitfire ... but it depends on the mission. If I had to attack a Battleship, I'd chose an Aichi B7A and leave the Spit at home.

simon

31st January 2004, 21:39

I agree with you that the term best fighter does depend on what your intended role is, and no aircraft within any given class ever excelled at every role within that class, that omission is part of what makes this debate such fun.

As for the F6F Hellcat, I would disagree that any of the comments or posters regard it as an "Also Ran", I certainly don't, however you have to accept in the same way that post-Battle of Britain Spitfires tend to get relatively little coverage in comparison to the Mustang and Thunderbolt, so the Pacific gets relatively far less international coverage than the ETO.

As for the Spitfire being consistently out fought by the Zero, I'm sticking my neck out slightly here and am going to suggest that this was probably more a matter of tactics, and the fact that the CBI theatre was regarded as of secondary importance, so certainly from the RAF's point of view, although with equal certainty not the RAAF's point of view, the equipment and personel sent to the far east tended to be of secondary standards. Nothing I've read indicates that the Zero was faster than contemporary Spitfires (Although those ugly tropical filters may have affected things!), however I think as a whole the RAF pilots were possibly easier to tempt into a turning dogfight than their USN counterparts.

You can't ignore the fact either that the disasterous losses in the quality of the Japanese Naval Airforce as a whole following Midway and Guadalcanal, coupled with the famous "Thach Weave" would have been enough to give any contemporary fighter force the edge.

As for the Bf109 and the infamous landing gear, I don't think it was a matter of stubborness on Willy Messerschmitt's part, but the whole design of the aircraft centred around keeping the wing section as a whole as thin as possible to minimise drag, so the only place strong enough to attach the undercarriage to was the fuselage, to redesign and reposition the undercarriage would have required such a major rethink of the aircraft that it would have become a whole new plane! Perhaps it could have been corrected but probably only at the prototype stage at the latest, even then the resulting redesign would likely have created an aircraft with far more modest characteristics (Thicker wing = greater drag = slower plane? I'm sort of taking an educated guess here because this is not my specialist field!), so the Bf109E would in all liklihood have been more the equal of the Hurricane than the Spitfire... Another one for the "What if...?" brigade!

Oh, if I had to attack a Battleship I'd take a Do217 with Fritz X and leave both the Spitfire and the B7A behind!

In all fairness I can't imagine that there are many fighters left that we haven't discussed in one way or another, however one clearly sticks out that I don't think has been covered, what about the humble P-40? Mediocre to the point that some RAF squadrons converting to the type asked for their Hurricanes back, however it was available in numbers throughout the war and fought in every theatre. Although I have read that it was never a match for it's Axis contemporaries, it was a highly capable fighter-bomber, and can't have been all that bad since the AVG used the type almost exclusively and built an unparalleled score against the Japanese over China and Burma. Whilst statisitically it is hard to argue the case for the P-40 as best fighter on paper, there can be no doubt that it had a major influence on the war, fighting from the start of hostilities in western europe with the french airforce as the radial engined P-36 Mohawk, right through to the end.

A candidate for "Unsung Hero" perhaps?

Pete57

1st February 2004, 04:48

Hi CAPILATUS

So far as recips are concerned...well it's a tough choice.

Single engine, I rate the lite Mustangs (P-51Hs & P-51Ks) number one by a real narrow margin. They really were the link between late piston engined planes and early jets: fast, manouverable, very high climb speed and great range. They would have been real tough cookies for the Japanese, had the war continued just a li'l' longer.
By the way, I've noticed that several members quote them as having taken part in some conflict, but all of my sources quote the P-51Hs as the only operational Mustangs to have never seen action.
Close seconds would be the Focke Wulf Ta-152s, Republic P-47Ms & Ns, the Martin-Baker M.B.5, and Spitfires Mk.21/22, in random order.

So far as the twins are concerned, well it's even harder. I'd probably rate the De Havilland Hornet as the best twin in WW2 (its only flaw, in my humble opinion, is the handicap of the wooden construction most unsuited for tropical climates).
But again there are really close seconds: The Grumman F-7F Tigercat, The Dornier Do.335, The Arado 240 (an airplane whose potential, to me, was never fully understood) and the Mitsubishi Ki-83, so often not considered.
Another great twin was the Heinkel He.219, whose specialization, though, would have eventually spelled its demise even if Hitler had not been against it.

One last consideration: as for the P-80 Shooting Star, all of these aircraft - with the possible exception of the Arado - are relatively latecomers and their real potential can only be a matter of guesswork.

Romantic Technofreak

1st February 2004, 19:15

Hello newcomers, welcome!

One answer to Greg: There was also a sensible reason not to produce the He 100, because the surface cooling caused wing deformation. Some He 100s were sent to the USSR for evaluation, but the Russians also could not solve the problem and decided not to copy the He 100 either.

To all: I don´t know what you think about flying wings, but if some of you consider, very rightfully, the P-80 to be best, I place the Gotha Go 229 against it.

http://www.geocities.com/nedu537/go229/

With weaker jet engines, the Go 229 showed the same speed like the P-80. By 1945 the USA already has annihilated the German advantage in jet production, because in Germany the supply for high-temerature-stable metal was already very low, causing lots of troubles with the jet engines already being produced and making it impossible to get stronger ones (e.g. the Heinkel HeS 011) out of the prototype stage, while the P-80 already was equipped with the Allison JE 33.
If the war had continued, Germany would have needed a functioning Go 229 to keep up with the P-80, and a one with HeS 011 to further outperform it.

P38Kid

2nd February 2004, 00:46

Hello All
I don't pretend to know even a small amount of what all of you know. However I would like to throw in my opinion anyway.
I will give my vote to the P38 Lightning.
It was a great fighter that took down more planes in the Pacific front than any other. They were flown by two of the greatest aces in the war. They had a powerful and flexible design that allowed it to play multiple roles as fighter/bomber/spy/nightfighter/ground attack. [u]It had a reputation for bringing its pilots back alive</u>. Its range was comparable to the P51 even without drop tanks, and its twin engines gave it excellent redunancy.
I am not going to say that it could outfly the spitfire or anything like that. But if I could only choose one fighter the P38 would have to be the one.
I have seen many posts were many of you disagree I just don't want such a great fighter to be waved off so casually.

robert

2nd February 2004, 06:57

quote:Originally posted by P38Kid

I will give my vote to the P38 Lightning.
It was a great fighter that took down more planes in the Pacific front than any other.

This is not true, although it's often unfortunately repeated by historians who don't realise that an important word is left out of the sentence. The P-38 Lightning destroyed more Japanese aircraft in the Pacific than any other USAAF fighter - an even 1,700. However, that was only the third highest total among US fighters, if you include USN/USMC fighters. The Grumman F6F Hellcat had 5,163 kills in the Pacific - almost three times as many as the P-38, and the F4U Corsair had 2,140, also more than the P-38.

The F6F Hellcat, incredibly enough, had more kills against Japanese aircraft than all USAAF fighters combined. USAAF fighters had 4,040 kills gainst the Japanese, over 1,000 less than the F6F alone.

ickysdad

2nd February 2004, 10:53

On the P-40 being an unsung hero ,I've read numerous accounts that the P-40 below 15,000' would be the equal of a '109,and alsmost so of a '190. Against the Zero,at low alt's, it was faster ,had more firepower,more rugged, dove faster and at higher speeds out-rolled the Zero. The Zero on the other hand out-turned,out-accelerated and out-climbed the P-40. In other words if a P-40 pilot used energy tatices against a Zero,he would do quite well. It seems the plane wasn't the dog history has made it out to be.
Look at the P-39 it did quite well on the Eastern Front where combat was mostly at low level. So it seems tatics and the pilots sticking to them were the most important things.

robert

2nd February 2004, 13:44

quote:Originally posted by GregP
The consensus seems to be that most people here strongly favor the Spitfire. Good thing these people didn't live in WWII and fly Spits against Japanese fighters! Most of these same people religate the Hellcat as an also-ran fighter even though it DID face the Japanese and won big-time (highest air-to-air kill ratio of any fighter in WWII from any country). It never found an opponent it couldn't master. The Spitfire did in the Zero, which could outturn it and later models could outclimb the Spit. The only aerial thing the Zero coudn't do better was go fast. Armmament is another discussion entirely.

I’m afraid I have to disagree, repectfully but most emphatically, with many of these statements. First off, I would never relegate the F6F Hellcat to being an also-ran – its record of 5,171 enemy aircraft destroyed in USN/USMC service speaks for itself. No fighter ever performed its assigned job in a better fashion. The Hellcat must be considered as one of the five greatest fighters of the war, and the greatest naval fighter. No other logical conclusion is possible.

As for the Spitfire and the Zero, the Spitfire’s record against the Zero is clouded in misconceptions and distortions, and the negative stereotypes that have surrounded it are supported only by the inconsistent performance of the obsolescent Spitfire Mk.Vcs (fitted with Volkes filters) of No. 1 Wing that opposed the A6Ms during the Darwin raids of 1943.

To start with, much of the myth of the Zero’s superiority over the Spitfire is based on erroneous Japanese identification. Typical of this is Jiro Horikoshi’s Eagles of Mitsubishi: The Story of the Zero Fighter (generally an excellent book, BTW). Horikoshi’s account of the fighting over Ceylon in 1942 states, “...in the skies over Colombo, thirty-six Zeros fought against scores of Hurricanes and Spitfires and downed seventeen Spitfires and twenty-one Hurricanes with a loss of just one Zero.”

The problem with this is that there were no Spitfires there at all. In the second edition of the book, the publishers added a correction that read, “After publication of the English edition of this book in 1981, we were alerted to a factual error in the description of the air battles during the Indian Ocean campaign. On page 131, we describe the Zero fighting against the Supermarine Spitfire over Colombo in 1942. Apparently Japanese pilots confused the Fairey Fulmar for the Spitfire, since the Fulmar, which somewhat resembled the Spitfire, participated in this battle; the Spitfire was not operational in the Pacific until 1943.”

Unfortunately, the damage to the Spitfire’s reputation had been done.

The battles between the Spitfire Mk.V and A6M over North Australia in 1943 are also clouded by misconceptions. The Spitfire Mk.V certainly did have a tough time dealing with the A6M, partially because of poor tactics, but also because the A6M was, at the time, an equal match for the Spitfire Mk.V, which was obsolescent in Europe and had already been replaced there by the Mk.IX. But the Spitfire’s performance against the Zero wasn’t anywhere near as bad as is commonly suggested. Here’s an excerpt from Famous Fighter Squadrons of the RAF, Volume One, by Francis K. Mason:

“On 2 May [1943], a radar station on Bathurst Island located an enemy force 160 miles from Darwin, whose controller then ordered all three squadrons into the air. Led by Caldwell, the wing assembled 33 Spitfires but failed to gain a height advantage until the raiders were over Darwin. No. 54 [Squadron, RAF] was again directed against the fighter escort while the Australian squadrons closed with the retiring bombers. Squadron Leader Gibbs led the RAF Spitfires in an almost vertical dive on the ‘Zekes’ and saw his first target burst into flames. Taken by surprise, the Japanese fighters broke formation and the sky was filled with diving and turning aircraft. Flying Officer Farries (in BR 239) accounted for a second ‘Zeke’ but, in turn, was shot down and took to his rubber dinghy. He was rescued after 5-1/2 hours by a Supermarine Walrus amphibian.

“The Australian squadrons were simultaneously attacking the bombers which were defended by even more enemy fighters. Thus, when the action was broken off due to fuel shortage, enemy losses totalled eight destroyed, four probables, and eight damaged. Five Spitfires had gone down and three of their pilots were in dinghies awaiting rescue. Sixteen minutes after the attack began, Caldwell recalled his scattered fighters and headed for home, now a long way off. Though within the normal capacity of Spitfires, the chase had resulted in abnormal consumption of fuel and an extreme adverse wind did nothing to help. Five aircraft ran out of fuel and force landed, one in the sea, and three more suffered engine failure causing a fatal crash. This brought the total number lost during the day to eight, with six more force-landed and awaiting recovery.

“At this point, an astonishing series of events left the squadron baffled. General MacArthur – who had been appointed Supreme Commander in the South-West Pacific after his defeat in the Philippines – had been criticized for the optimistic communiqués issuing from his headquarters. Presumably because no U.S. forces were involved and Darwin was remote from his main preoccupations, a communiqué was issued to redress the balance, It announced baldly that Spitfires defending Darwin had engaged a Japanese bomber force and suffered heavy casualties. The squadrons involved were staggered, newspapers throughout the world reported that Spitfires were ‘outclassed’, and RAAF headquarters was enraged.

“An amending press release mentioned ‘bad weather’ as contributing to the losses, another obvious untruth, and the men of the Spitfire squadrons suspected that it was a plot to boost the morale of the U.S. fighter squadrons in New Guinea who were having to cope with Japanese fighters while flying obsolescent Bell P-39s (Airacobras) and P-40s, neither of which were a match for the ‘Zeke’.

“The Japanese reacted predictably, claiming 21 Spitfires shot down without loss to themselves!”

Unfortunately, this distortion has been perpetuated to this day – for example, when AeroMaster Decals released their Eagles of the Rising Sun set of decals for model aircraft in 1995, they repeated the fiction that Zeros had destroyed 21 Spitfires for no loss on their instruction sheet.

The Darwin air raids were the only time that Spitfire Mk.Vs and A6Ms met head to head, but the Mk.V did very well against other Japanese fighters. For example, in January 1944, Burma-based Spitfire Mk.Vs destroyed 20 Ki-43s for the loss of four Spitfires. Bryan Philpott’s RAF Combat Units SEAC 1941-45 gives the Spitfire’s kill ratio in the CBI as 8-1 in favor of the Spit.

Once the Spitfire Mk.VIII was introduced into the region in early 1944, the game was up for the Japanese fighters. As Chaz Bowyer in Supermarine Spitfire notes of the first CBI Spitfire kill in November 1943, “It was the start of the long road back to Allied air superiority over Burma; an ascendancy directly attributable to the impact of Spitfires on the aerial war. If the Mark Vc was only marginally better than its best opponents, the arrival of the Mark VIIIs by March 1944, which by then equipped a total of eight squadrons, offered an unqualified advantage in all sections of the performance envelope.”

The Official History eloquently states, “...the advent of the Spitfire squadrons brought promise of victory as the arrival of the swallow that of summer.”

Back to the Spitfire against the Zero, although the later model Spitfires never had a chance to meet the later model Zeros, we do have a way of being able to judge them. The Seafire Mk.III had a chance to fight against the Zero, and from its record against the A6M, we can get a clear idea of how the later Spitfires would have fared against the Zero. David Brown’s The Seafire: The Spitfire That Went to Sea looks in detail at the Seafire’s combat career. Versus the A6M, the Seafire had a kill ratio in its favor of 16-1, which pretty much contradicts any assertion that the Spitfire never mastered the Zero. The later Spitfires/Seafires could basically eat it for lunch.

Eric Brown, in Duels in the Sky, sizes up the outcome of a hypothetical fight between the Spitfire Mk.XIV and the A6M5 with the following:

“The Zeke would find itself facing a fighter par excellence, with no weakness to exploit and huge advantages in performance, view, and firepower. Even its legendary maneuverability would be matched for once. The Zeke would be overwhelmed swiftly and surely by a fighter outclassing it in virtually every department.”

Yep, it’s no contest.

I also have to question the statement that the later model Zeros could outclimb the Spit. The A6M5c had an initial climb rate of 3,140 ft./min. The Spitfire Mk.XIV had an initial climb rate of 5,110 ft./min. That’s not just an advantage in the Spitfire’s favor, it’s a massive advantage.

Pete57

2nd February 2004, 19:17

Hi Romantic Technofreak

Good point on the Go-229 vs the P-80.

However, the total thrust was about the same as the P-80A's, and its matched opponent could have been an even tougher one: the Republic P-84 Thunderjet, a better overall performer than the P-80.

I most agree with you on flying wings though, as proved by the success of the B-2 Stealth Bomber.

Also, you can draw an interesting comparison between the Horten and the Northrop XP-79B.

They were both ahead of their time, and they both paid dearly for it. Both were destroyed by controllability related problems, the XP-79B on its first flight, the Horten on its second. Their first flights were about 10 months apart.
Curiously enough, they both flew on days and months that started with the same digit 02/02/45 the Horten 12/12/45 the XP-79B. Wonder if that could make a flying-wing test pilot superstitious? :D

Both had very innovative features: RAM paint,the Horten, and magnesium construction and prone pilot, the XP-79B which was also to be employed against enemy bombers in semi-kamikaze tactics (hence the name Flying Ram).
Indeed there was unconventional (should I say crazy?) thinking also in the Allied, military think-tank. [8D]

Ricky

2nd February 2004, 22:01

Just a little pondering regarding the Me109's record of kills...
Yes, no question that it scored the highest number of kills of any type. But does that make it the best?
Remember that:
a) it was numerically the most important fighter the Germans had for most (if not all) of the war
b) In 1939/40, (Poland and to a lesser extent France) and 1941-2 (USSR) the opponants faced by the 109 were obsolete 1930s aeroplanes, with obsolete tactics.
Easy meat.

simon

2nd February 2004, 22:19

I would agree with you on point A, however point b seems a little confusing, I agree that just because an aircraft type dropped "X" Tonnes of bombs or destroyed "Y" enemy aircraft is not useful information in itself, especially if taken out of context, however your comment seems to suggest that the very fact that the Bf109 (Not the Me109, Messerschmitt aircraft only had the "Me" prefix for designs that flew after Willy Messerschmitt became head of Bayerisch Flugzeug, sorry pet hate there!) was not the best because it was better than the majority of its contemporaries... ;)

A bit of deliberate misinterpretation on that point by myself...

Overall though I do agree with what you're saying, to me a far more meaningful method of measuring the success of a pure fighter (Rather than ground attack or fighter bomber) would be to reference the number of kills against the number of aircraft produced, and where possible losses and sorties.

Robert, excellent posts, keep 'em coming!

Ricky

2nd February 2004, 23:19

For clarity -

I was saying that one of the reasons the Bf109 (apologies - I always get the Bf/Me the wrong way round) managed to rack up an impressive score may well have been that many of its earlier opponants were decidedly inferior. When it met with more 'modern' aircraft (such as the Latest French Dewontines, or Spitfires, etc) its edge dropped off a bit. Of course, many of the more 'modern' aircraft it met were designed & built after the 109 was in service...

P38Kid

3rd February 2004, 06:20

Thank you Robert for correcting me on that point. I know that there were other statements that could have been argued as well.

GregP

3rd February 2004, 12:59

So many things to mention, so little time.

I'm sure Eric Brown WOULD like to have fought an A6M5 in the unlimate Spitfire. So would anyone, including the Japanese. It might be different if you fought the untimate Spitfire against the ultimate Zero. Who can say? They never met and won't, so it's all opinion.

In real life, the Spits didn't do very well against the Zeros, folks. Don't give me "tactics." The fact are the facts. Was the Spit a better mount? Probably. Would better tactics have helped? Yep. Fact is, the Zeros had the better of the Zpits when they met.

Live with it.

The P-40 and the P-39 were world-class fighters below 15,000 feet. The P-39 in particular had pretty good performace if you kept it low. Typical of the Allision engine in unturbocharged configuration. Imagine the P63 with a supercharged Merlin!

I believe the P-80 was the best Jet of WWII. The Gotha 229 never got out of flight test, so we have no idea of its potential. The maneuverability would NOT have been as good as conventional aircraft.

About the "also-rans", the P-47N DID get into squadron service in the Pacific during WWII. The P-51H got there, but too late for combat other than a few recon missions. The Martin-Baker MB-5 never saw production, so it really isn't a "might have been" since they didn't builf it. They DID build P51H & K, P47 M & N.

I agree ... the P51H was very close to the early jets in performance, was more maneuverable, and probably could outclimb them, too. Wish we had 'em in 1942! ... but we didn't.

Absolutely GREAT discussion on page 16 or so of a LONG thread! Keep it up! So many people leap to the defense of the Spitfire it makes me wonder where the defenders of the other contenders might be. The Spit was a great plane to be sure, but the United States, Germany, and the Soviet Union ALSO had some great planes.

The arguement of which was the best will continue to rage forever since there is almost no way to pit them against each other ... especially since some are "excinct."

I'd love to see a speed chart versus altitude, rate of climb versus altitude, rate of roll at various speeds, instantaneous rate of turn, abslute altitude capability, and sustained rate of turn for the major WWII fighters. Maybe then we'd have something to compare other than our opinions!

My hunch is the several aircraft probably exhibit a similar instantaneous rate of turn, but the Spitire, the Zero, the La-5 / La-7, and the Yak-3 probably have the best sustained rate of turn. Rate of roll would depend on speed and pilot strength in most cases since not many WWII fighters were hydraulically boosted. Speed would go to the P-51H or Ta-152 for the pistons and probably the P-80 for the jets. Absolute altitude capability would be a toss up. Who knows? Probably the biggest wing with the best power loading. Power loading goes to the Soviet Yaks, but they weren't high altitude engines.

Anyway, if anone has the data, I'd be glad to throw it into Excel and produce charts for comparison purposes ... and post it.

Pete57

3rd February 2004, 23:09

Hi GregP

Point well taken on the "also-rans". The P-47Ms & Ns did see action.
Do you have details on the units flying the P-51Hs on recon missions?

I agree with you on the charts as well and, BTW, I remember reading someplace a P-59A or B Airacomet had set some un-official altitude record over Muroc (boy, those wings were huge!).

Well we may have finally found something the Airacomet was extremelly good at :D

And while we're at the early jets, I still wonder why the RAF decided to devote most of its efforts, in 1943-44, to the development of the Meteor instead of the Vampire.

Admittedly, the Meteor proved to have a greater development potential, but in 1944 the Vampire was still outperforming the early Meteors in terms of speed, manouverability, climb rate and...ease of production! (it was partly made of wood).

Just as important, from the production point of view, was the fact that both the airframe and the engine were manufactured by the same Company: De Havilland.

The De Havilland/Halford H.1 'Goblin' engine was powerful, simple (had 'straight-thru' combustors when the others were using the 'reverse' arrangement), reliable and ready for production when those made by the other manufacturer chosen for turbojet production (Rover) were still struggling to meet the contractually required thrust.

Such was the soundness of the Goblin's design, that it would go on to power the prototypes of all the first successful British and U.S. jet fighters, namely the Gloster Meteor (as the F.9/40), the De Havilland Vampire (as the E.6/41) and the Lockheed Shooting Star (as the XP-80)

I think the Vampire would have acquitted itself real good in the combat arena, but fate had it otherwise[V]

ickysdad

4th February 2004, 10:29

On the Spitfire vs. Zero debate,how many times did they meet? In those engagements over Darwin were the Spitfires the II, V, or IX models? From what I understand these engagements took place in early-mid '43. The IX appeared in mid-42 the V about a year or so earlier it seems that the IX would be far ahead of the Zero.I've read several accounts where New Zealand & Australian pilots(and Chennault's Flying Tigers definately were) flying P-40's around this time were besting the Zero if this is the case why were they having so much trouble taking it on when flying the much superior Spitfire? As compared to the P-40. I mean the P-40,as far as being an energy fighter, was faster,dived faster,and could out-roll a Zero at high speeds on top of being much tougher and better armed. It seems the Spitfire would be faster ,have better diving speeds(not as good as the P-40 though) and better high speed handling than the Zero plus the Spitfire had far better high altitude capability than the P-40. What was the difference? Seems like if the P-40 could,at the very least, hold it's own than the Spitfire should also.
On the Russian planes being so great what about thier mechanical/structural problems? Yeah Greg I know we've debated this before, but my one good reference says they had all those problems. I just need to start something to get more info on the subject hope somebody swallows the bait WE NEED MORE INFO ON THIS!!!!!! By the way did you know there was P-51L being designed at the end of the war? It seems is was likely yo enter production in late '45.

robert

4th February 2004, 16:14

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On the Spitfire vs. Zero debate,how many times did they meet? In those engagements over Darwin were the Spitfires the II, V, or IX models? From what I understand these engagements took place in early-mid '43. The IX appeared in mid-42 the V about a year or so earlier it seems that the IX would be far ahead of the Zero.I've read several accounts where New Zealand & Australian pilots(and Chennault's Flying Tigers definately were) flying P-40's around this time were besting the Zero if this is the case why were they having so much trouble taking it on when flying the much superior Spitfire? As compared to the P-40. I mean the P-40,as far as being an energy fighter, was faster,dived faster,and could out-roll a Zero at high speeds on top of being much tougher and better armed. It seems the Spitfire would be faster ,have better diving speeds(not as good as the P-40 though) and better high speed handling than the Zero plus the Spitfire had far better high altitude capability than the P-40. What was the difference? Seems like if the P-40 could,at the very least, hold it's own than the Spitfire should also.

The Spitfires defending Darwin in 1943 were Mk.Vcs.

robert

4th February 2004, 16:20

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad
On the Russian planes being so great what about thier mechanical/structural problems? Yeah Greg I know we've debated this before, but my one good reference says they had all those problems. I just need to start something to get more info on the subject hope somebody swallows the bait. WE NEED MORE INFO ON THIS!!!!!! By the way did you know there was P-51L being designed at the end of the war? It seems is was likely yo enter production in late '45.

Speaking of structural problems, we may as well talk about one other Allied fighter that had very severe structural problems...

The North American P-51 Mustang's unfortunate tendency to disintegrate in mid-air is not that well-known, but it was a very serious problem. It's worth looking at in detail:

"The Mustang had been dogged by instances of structural failure, particularly since the marriage to the Merlin. Flight restrictions on dives and other manoeuvres were imposed, but in the course of combat, these sometimes had to be ignored. The puzzling thing about Mustang airframe failure was that it could not be pinpointed to any one area and was sometimes encountered in brand-new aircraft that had not undergone any known flight strain. Engines tore loose from fuselages, wings were shed, and empennages crumpled and while most of these incidents happened during a sharp manoevre it was a fact that other Mustangs would engage in the same manoevre time and again without any sign of failure. Some components were strengthened - notably the fin and undercarriage door locks (which had a nasty habit of breaking open) - but a few cases of airframe failure were regularly reported to the end of hostilities and beyond." - Roger Freeman, Mustang at War.

"Most serious of all [problems] was structural failure. Occasionally the wings came off Mustangs in a high-speed dive. There were two main causes for this. At very high speeds, the large doors of the ammunition bays began to bulge outwards. This distorted the wing to the stage where stresses imposed were too great, and it parted company with the fuselage. The second cause was a tendency for the undercarriage to extend in flight, causing abnormal loads on the wing." - Mike Spick, Great Aircraft of WWII

"'I witnessed this [Mustang wing] loss on two occasions. One wing was lost directly over the airfield at Madna, Italy in the fall of 1944. The airplane and pilot went straight into the ground not far from the control tower. One other loss occurred there during an afternoon 'rat race.' Coincidentally we were discussing this wing loss with Johnny Typer, the civilian representative from NAA at the time. He was adamant that no-one could pull the wings off a P-51. No sooner had he made that remark than I heard behind me the dull thumps of two wings separating. He asked 'What's that?' and I answered that it had happened again. He asked how I knew, to which I replied, 'Once you've heard that sound, you'll never forget it.' We watched as the litter and tumbling wings fell slowly to the ground, long after the fuselage and pilot had crashed - an unforgettable sight and feeling." - Lt. William G. Coloney, 52nd FG, quoted in the Spick book mentioned above.

Also worth looking at is Garry Fry and Jeff Ethell's brilliant Escort to Berlin: The 4th Fighter Group in World War Two, which gives a day-by-day account of the group's operations, covering their troublesome introduction to Mustang operations, including several cases of catastrophic structural failure.