View Full Version : Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2
crusader377
06-15-21, 11:19
Since we had a good discussion on the best tank of WW2. I wanted to make a post on what in your opinion is the best fighter aircraft of WW2. I will have ten choices again and you can make two votes. Here are my thoughts:
1) Spitfire: Won the Battle of Britain, excellent dogfighter, good speed and climb rate, maintained its status as a top fighter throughout the war from 1939 to 1945. Widely built, served worldwide.
2) P-51 Mustang: Was able to escort allied bombers deep into the heart of Germany allowing the allies to substanially damage the German war effort and shorten the war. Also used in the the Pacific to escort B-29s into Japan. Good to excellent all-round performance, widely produced.
Honorable mention: ME-262. First operational jet fighter, pointed the way forward in aviation design, most innovative fighter, however too little to late.
Sorry is mispelled Spitfire in post.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-15-21, 11:46
The amazing thing is how much these models changed (spitfire, 190, P51, P47 especially) and their relative advantage over contemporary aircraft.
Hard not to go with the P51 as the best and most influential- and served all over- but if it is my ass in the cockpit and I want to maximize my ability to put the smack down AND bring my but home? P47N- all day everyday.
https://youtu.be/7jeV3wuML2s
FW190, versatile, rugger, well armed and armored.
Man, these are tough superlatives. The F4U I think was the all-around fastest (yes, a wee bit slower overall than the P-47, but the P-47 could only be fast at high altitudes); the war's top ace had 352 kills in a BF-109, and it did all-service roles (recon, attack, fighter, etc.).; the A6M was super light and very maneuverable; the Spitfire was probably the most rugged; P-38 had the top 2 US kill records, was fast, had the fastest climb record, and had a crazy range; the P-51 with the Rolls Royce engine had a ceiling of 40,000 feet and nearly 500 mph.
Oh...choices, choices....
crusader377
06-15-21, 13:01
Man, these are tough superlatives. The F4U I think was the all-around fastest (yes, a wee bit slower overall than the P-47, but the P-47 could only be fast at high altitudes); the war's top ace had 352 kills in a BF-109, and it did all-service roles (recon, attack, fighter, etc.).; the A6M was super light and very maneuverable; the Spitfire was probably the most rugged; P-38 had the top 2 US kill records, was fast, had the fastest climb record, and had a crazy range; the P-51 with the Rolls Royce engine had a ceiling of 40,000 feet and nearly 500 mph.
Oh...choices, choices....
There were at least 5 or 6 other historically or performance significant aircraft I wanted to add in the list but couldn't so I had to narrow it down to 10. Plus I wanted to have at least 1 aircraft from each of the 5 major powers. USA, Britain, USSR, Germany, and Japan. Off the top of my head the runner ups were the following:
P-38
F4U Corsair
La-5 and La-7
Hawker Hurricane
Hawker Tempest
J2M Raiden
P-40
crusader377
06-15-21, 13:06
The amazing thing is how much these models changed (spitfire, 190, P51, P47 especially) and their relative advantage over contemporary aircraft.
Hard not to go with the P51 as the best and most influential- and served all over- but if it is my ass in the cockpit and I want to maximize my ability to put the smack down AND bring my but home? P47N- all day everyday.
https://youtu.be/7jeV3wuML2s
Although my vote was P-51 and Spitfire, if I had to pick which aircraft to fly it would probably be a P-47N with a Spitfire Mark XIV a close second.
This is an interesting read from someone who flew 400 different planes including most if not all of the WW2 fighters as a test pilot.
https://www.historynet.com/incredible-winkle-brown.htm
titsonritz
06-15-21, 13:08
Lockheed P-38 Lighting, the fork-tailed devil. It avenged Pearl Harbor and took out Yamamoto, also gave Charles Lindbergh, a civilian, his combat kill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Eq86xuVGW8
gunnerblue
06-15-21, 13:10
P38 Lightning because of its versatility. Fighter plane that was also used for bombing, escort and recon
FW 190 was a pretty formidable fighter on its own.
Surprised no one has mentioned the Zero yet and it's maneuverability
Wasn't the FW190 regularly eaten alive by hurricane's which doesn't even make the list? My memory of history tells me the Hurricane's were more prevalent, at the most critical time than the Spitfires.
I could make the argument the Corsair was far more effective and prevalent than the P-38, which is still my favorite, neither of which are listed.
crusader377
06-15-21, 13:29
Another interesting thing was the relative costs between each aircraft. I did a quick google search for the American fighters of WW2 and here are the prices. Some numbers are ranges.
P-40: $44,000-$53,000
P-39: $51,000 in 1944
P-51: $51,000-$55,000
F6F Hellcat: $50K-$60K Estimate (Navy could buy 5 Hellcats for the price of 3 Corsairs)
P-47: $85,000
F4U: Corsair $88,000
P-38: $100,000 to 110,0000
When you look at costs, you can see why the P-51 and the F6F Hellcat were so widely fielded and how the P-40 stayed around for so long even though the P-38 was available from 1942 and the P-47 from 1943. Also why the P-39 was a popular lend-lease aircraft throughout the war particularly with the Soviet Union.
crusader377
06-15-21, 13:35
The list to vote is severely flawed.
Wasn't the FW190 regularly eaten alive by hurricane's which doesn't even make the list? My memory of history tells me the Hurricane's were more prevalent, at the most critical time than the Spitfires.
I could make the argument the Corsair was far more effective and prevalent than the P-38, which is still my favorite, neither of which are listed.
I was limited to 10 spots. I deleted the Hurricane because although it was more numerous than the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, it was functionally obsolete as a fighter by 1943 although it served as a fighter bomber throughout the war. The Corsair was late being fielded to the carrier force because it had a tendacy to kill inexperienced pilots hence its nickname the "Ensign Eliminator." P-38 reputation was a mixed bag, extremely successful in the Pacific and in the Mediterean theater, had difficulties in Northwest Europe thus I picked the P-47 over the P-38 for the list.
I felt the Japanese and Russians needed at least 1 aircraft from their respective countries.
The list to vote is severely flawed.
Wasn't the FW190 regularly eaten alive by hurricane's which doesn't even make the list? My memory of history tells me the Hurricane's were more prevalent, at the most critical time than the Spitfires.
I could make the argument the Corsair was far more effective and prevalent than the P-38, which is still my favorite, neither of which are listed.
No, the FW-190 was not regularly eaten alive by the Hurricane.
The FW-190 is one of the best and most versatile fighters of the war (especially the lower A series like A3/A5 -- higher A series had tons of cannons and armor added in order to bring down bombers, which greatly reduced the maneuverability). Was an excellent dog fighter and also a decent ground attack (in different versions).
This is a hard poll. FW-190, Spitfire, P-51, Corsair were all excellent. I voted FW-190 as I am partial to that but the P-51 is my hands down favorite US and in top 2 for all around favorite of mine (and performed awesomely).
And the Corsair. I grew up on "baa baa black sheep / black sheep squadron" on TV :) Once they figured out a few things about the Corsair and were able to correct them, the Corsair became devastating and lasted well into the 50s with various Navies.
crusader377
06-15-21, 13:42
The list to vote is severely flawed.
Wasn't the FW190 regularly eaten alive by hurricane's which doesn't even make the list? My memory of history tells me the Hurricane's were more prevalent, at the most critical time than the Spitfires.
I could make the argument the Corsair was far more effective and prevalent than the P-38, which is still my favorite, neither of which are listed.
The Hurricane in the Battle of Britain was tasked with shooting down German Bombers and dive Bombers while the Spitfire was given the task to shoot down the Me-109s. The FW-190 was a shock to the British when it was introduced in 1941 and outclassed the Spitfire Mark V which led the British to field the Spitfire Mark IX to achieve parity.
Didn't realize the limit was 10.....You get a free pass then. Tough choices, clearly.
Once they figured out a few things about the Corsair and were able to correct them, the Corsair became devastating and lasted well into the 50s with various Navies.
Some countries flew Corsairs until the late 60s. It was as versatile a loitering CAS AC as the A-1. And yes, once they got the bugs worked out, it was a formidable carrier aircraft.
titsonritz
06-15-21, 14:11
Another interesting thing was the relative costs between each aircraft. I did a quick google search for the American fighters of WW2 and here are the prices. Some numbers are ranges.
P-40: $44,000-$53,000
P-39: $51,000 in 1944
P-51: $51,000-$55,000
F6F Hellcat: $50K-$60K Estimate (Navy could buy 5 Hellcats for the price of 3 Corsairs)
P-47: $85,000
F4U: Corsair $88,000
P-39: $100,000 to 110,0000
When you look at costs, you can see why the P-51 and the F6F Hellcat were so widely fielded and how the P-40 stayed around for so long even though the P-38 was available from 1942 and the P-47 from 1943. Also why the P-39 was a popular lend-lease aircraft throughout the war particularly with the Soviet Union.
I think you mean P-38 on your last one there.
A lot of myths I see here perpetuated.
Anyway, what's the mission? What altitude? What's the opposition? What version of aircraft?
These sorts of polls can be maddening.
Do I choose the P-51? Which one? A,B,C,D or H? Mustang I, II, or III? How about an Apache?
Corsair? Before or after canvas ailerons and elevator? With MG or cannon? -1, -4 or FG?
P-38... before or after cockpit heat, boosted ailerons and 2nd generator? And that "fork tailed devil"... gtfo with that crap. That was made up by author Martin Caiden to help sell his books. Germans just called it a Lightning.
FW-190... radial (A-8 for instance) or long nose? (D-9, D-13)
Spitfire? I, V, IX, XIV, XIX, and every other Roman number known to man? Which engine? Merlin or Griffin? And who the hell said it was rugged? It was demonstrably one of the more fragile aircraft made. Like the Zero, lightly constructed (not to the degree of the Zero though). The aircraft first built in 1936 bore scant resemblance to the one built in 1945. Different engine, different armament, completely different wing, modified fuselage... and etc.
Bf-109? Had a similar career path as the Spitfire. Both the 109 and Spitfire had horrible range.
The Hellcat had the best kill ratio and was very easy to fly and a stable gun platform.
Here's my take- a lot of these aircraft are pretty close and the difference is the skill of the pilot who can take advantage of his opponents weaknesses. A P39 was a decent aircraft until you went above 12000 ft. A FW 190A good to about 20000. Spitfire? Which model? One that flew well from 15-25000 ft was not good above that. The one that were good above that weren't as good below. Fighting conditions in the Pacific were very different than that of Europe which were quite different again in the Eastern Front and that differed from the tropics or N. Africa.
Pick your poison.
If I had a choice, it'd be a PBY traipsing around Key West carrying passengers.
Pacific5th
06-15-21, 14:27
I’d say the Corsair. Great all around fighter that the Marines made there own. It was great at ground attack too. I read somewhere that in the Pacific the Marines had more ground attack planes and flew more close air support missions for the Marines and Army then did the USAAF.
Maybe we need two polls
Best Allied Fighter
Best Axis Fighter
Then later a poll with the top 3 or 4 or so from each of those polls.
No love for Japanese aircraft? You have the Ki-61 Tony, N1K2 George or the Ki-100... all excellent aircraft even if the engines were suspect.
P2Vaircrewman
06-15-21, 15:14
A hard question. Aircraft technology grew leaps and bounds during the war. What was best at the beginning wasn't at the end. The P 51 wasn't much of a fighter escort with the Allison engine until it was fitted with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. It had the latest in airfoil technology with it's laminar flow wing. Other than the Me 262, Germany ended the war pretty much with the aircraft they started with, so did the Japanese. The P-47 had long range and heavy armor but it was more of a ground support aircraft hence the A-10 being named the Thunderbolt II. We out built the Zero with the F6F Hellcat in numbers and pilots learned the Zero's weaknesses and forced them to fight on our terms.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-15-21, 15:15
I can’t source it, but I read somewhere that an engineer that worked on the P51 got to see the design and build of the Spitfires- and the comment was that the Spits were design and built much more lightly than American fighters. Obviously they were strong enough, but just from a materials and time, I can see the desire to make it as light as possible. IIRC, they stripped down a P51 to “British” type construction/reinforcement for a considerable weight savings.
The Japanese late war models will never get a full accounting due to pilot quality.
Best Axis fighter was FW-190.
Not sure about what fighter was best. I know the P51 fighter flew to protect the B-17 squadrons and all. I have to say the P-47 Thunderbolt with it 8 .50 caliber machine guns and could be fitted with bombs or unguided missiles was a real terror for the ground and in the air.
The robustness of Republic design was very interesting of where they placed armor on the plane. Probably irritated the German fighter pilots who ran out of ammo the P-47 got their pilot home.
For the bomber I like the B-26 Marauder. It had its issues and so the wing had to be lengthened since the B-26 had to land at high speed to keep from stalling.
polydeuces
06-15-21, 17:18
Not sure why the Hawker Tempest is getting so little recognition, possibly because its late arrival, and it took a while for 'management' to realize its value as a pure fighter, but all things considered it was hands down the best.
It outperformed pretty much anything else flying - as well as giving the ME262 a run for the money.
But to look at the Spitfire (any mark) is to see pure beauty.
Theres no equal.
Not sure why the Hawker Tempest is getting so little recognition, possibly because its late arrival, and it took a while for 'management' to realize its value as a pure fighter, but all things considered it was hands down the best.
It outperformed pretty much anything else flying - as well as giving the ME262 a run for the money.
But to look at the Spitfire (any mark) is to see pure beauty.
Theres no equal.
one problem is the poll only allows 10 entries. The Tempest was a nice plane. I've always liked it. Not as graceful as the Spitfire. Spitfire XIV is my favorite in that regard. So hard to come up with a "best" as they all had strengths and weaknesses and different uses/applications.
I read that the WW2 pilots had a saying- "if you want to take a picture to send home to Mom, take one with a P-51. If you want to make it home to Mom, fly a P-47".
And my vote goes to the F6F Hellcat, which helped turn the tide in the Pacific air war.
1. P-51 Mustang
2. ME-262
3. Tie - Spitfire and ME-109
Honorable Mention: P-47
P51D...speed to power ratio with the Rolls Royce....6 50 caliber machine guns, good visibility from the cockpit
I do agree with a split Axis vs Allies poll
the FW190 was very versatile to go from fighter, to fighter bomber, to ground support, to going against bombers.
Fixed the P51...- Armament
P51D...speed to power ratio with the Rolls Royce....8 50 caliber machine guns, good visibility from the cockpit
I do agree with a split Axis vs Allies poll
the FW190 was very versatile to go from fighter, to fighter bomber, to ground support, to going against bombers.
P-51D only had 6 x 50 cal MG. The P-47 had 8.
The P-51D was one awesome plane with a great range with tanks, and the ability to roam and fight at range.
P-51D only had 6 x 50 cal MG. The P-47 had 8.
The P-51D was one awesome plane with a great range with tanks, and the ability to roam and fight at range.
Thanks I had Spitfire on the brain...
Tempest was a good late war plane, it's strength was low altitude though. And early models liked to shed their tails. That's rather disconcerting in the middle of the scrum.
I am going to have to say Do 335 for axis. P-51H for Allies.
P-47M and F8F just behind.
I am going to have to say Do 335 for axis.
Well, if we are going to get esoteric. TA-152H. Kurt Tank was flying to a meeting in an unarmed one and was warned by controllers of 2 P-51 in the area, who appeared behind him. He gave it full throttle and some NOx boost and they were quickly left behind.
Esoteric? I think it means something other than you think it means.
The H model they only made a few of. That was the high altitude model. Had wings like a U2.
The C model was for more common altitudes.
On a comparison thread like this, a Corsair or Tempest or Hellcat couldn't even hope to fight a P47, TA152 or even P51 or certain Spitfire or Bf109 variants. European theater was fighting at ever increasing altitudes. CAP for a carrier at sea is a different animal altogether.
Esoteric? I think it means something other than you think it means.
It was not well known (still isn't except amongst the WW2 "scholars" who get into the subject).
Would "obscure" or "exotic" be more fitting?
The H model they only made a few of. That was the high altitude model. Had wings like a U2.
The C model was for more common altitudes.
The H model was the only version known to have reached full production. C models seem to have only been produced as pre-production. While the total production TA-152 of all variants is unknown, it was one of those limited in quantity end of war planes. Only 69 TA-152H of all variants (pre-production and production) are known according to the source I saw (on Wikipedia).
crusader377
06-15-21, 20:13
It is interesting to see everyone's criteria for best fighter. Although performance was certainly an important factor in my decision my reason for Spitfire as best fighter and P-51 close second is based probably more on historic significance rather than absolute performance.
With Spitfire, I simply don't see Great Britain winning the Battle of Britain without Spitfire. Yes Hurricane shot down more German planes but the Spitfire took on the Bf-109s which the Hurricane had a very tough time against the Bf-109. If Britain lost the Battle of Britain, WW2 would have turned out very different.
With the P-51, it was the aircraft which could escort the bombers all the way into Germany. Yes the P-47 and P-38 had some capability to do that but not as well. I think the bombing campaign against Germany shortened the war by many months if not a year. An American war effort without the P-51 would have seen probably heavier American bomber loses and ground loses. Furthermore, it is likely that the war would of ended with the Soviet Union occupying more of Europe.
Or would the atomic bomb be dropped on Germany first over Japan?
Remember we only bombed Japan with the atomic bomb because they were the sole axis power left by the time it was ready.
It is interesting to see everyone's criteria for best fighter. Although performance was certainly an important factor in my decision my reason for Spitfire as best fighter and P-51 close second is based probably more on historic significance rather than absolute performance.
With Spitfire, I simply don't see Great Britain winning the Battle of Britain without Spitfire. Yes Hurricane shot down more German planes but the Spitfire took on the Bf-109s which the Hurricane had a very tough time against the Bf-109. If Britain lost the Battle of Britain, WW2 would have turned out very different.
With the P-51, it was the aircraft which could escort the bombers all the way into Germany. Yes the P-47 and P-38 had some capability to do that but not as well. I think the bombing campaign against Germany shortened the war by many months if not a year. An American war effort without the P-51 would have seen probably heavier American bomber loses and ground loses. Furthermore, it is likely that the war would of ended with the Soviet Union occupying more of Europe.
Or would the atomic bomb be dropped on Germany first over Japan?
Remember we only bombed Japan with the atomic bomb because they were the sole axis power left by the time it was ready.
The big weakness for the P-51 Mustang was the liquid cooling system where the P-47 had an air cooled system. But I agree that the P-51 made a huge difference escorting the B-17 into Germany and may have shortened the war in Europe.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-tactical/p-47-thunderbolt-versus-p-51-mustang-which-legend-wins/
Grand58742
06-15-21, 20:34
And my vote goes to the F6F Hellcat, which helped turn the tide in the Pacific air war.
I might respectfully disagree here. The Battle of Midway was fought with F4F Wildcats (and some older Brewster Buffalos) which really was what turned the tide in the Pacific.
An argument could be made that the Battle of the Philippine Sea broke the Japanese for good which was fought mainly with Hellcats, but the damage to the Japanese fleet as well as their pilot staff was done at Midway.
The big weakness for the P-51 Mustang was the liquid cooling system where the P-47 had an air cooled system. But I agree that the P-51 made a huge difference escorting the B-17 into Germany and may have shortened the war in Europe.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-tactical/p-47-thunderbolt-versus-p-51-mustang-which-legend-wins/
A weakness shared with most British and many German planes (Bf-109, Bf-110, and lots of others). Very few Japanese planes were inline (liquid cooled) engines. The FW-190 (A/F models) were also radial air-cooled on the German side.
A weakness shared with most British and many German planes (Bf-109, Bf-110, and lots of others). Very few Japanese planes were inline (liquid cooled) engines. The FW-190 (A/F models) were also radial air-cooled on the German side.
The big weakness for the Japanese fighters in WW2 was the lack of self sealing fuel tanks. They saved weight without the self sealing fuel tanks and the range of the Japanese Zero was very impressive.
crusader377
06-15-21, 21:50
The big weakness for the P-51 Mustang was the liquid cooling system where the P-47 had an air cooled system. But I agree that the P-51 made a huge difference escorting the B-17 into Germany and may have shortened the war in Europe.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-tactical/p-47-thunderbolt-versus-p-51-mustang-which-legend-wins/
Yes and no, The air-cooled radial engines on the P-47 and Hellcat/Corsair certainly could take more damage, however the liquid cooled engine on planes such as the P-51, Spitfire, Bf-109 etc.. normally allowed the aircraft better aerodynamics due to the engine being considerably smaller thus allowing for a smaller and harder to hit plane.
Both designs had their advantages and disadvantages.
Yes and no, The air-cooled radial engines on the P-47 and Hellcat/Corsair certainly could take more damage, however the liquid cooled engine on planes such as the P-51, Spitfire, Bf-109 etc.. normally allowed the aircraft better aerodynamics due to the engine being considerably smaller thus allowing for a smaller and harder to hit plane.
Both designs had their advantages and disadvantages.
Of course, you also have the counter examples of the FW-190 and A6Mx Zero, which were radial powered, but highly maneuverable. The Germans in the initial prototypes had a large spinner covering the whole front that was vented in some way to try and provide the air for cooling, and also provide for good aerodynamics. It didn't work out that well and was abandoned in production but they still worked for good aerodynamics through the spinner and cowl design.
The Japanese prized maneuverability above all early on and so the Zero, despite it's radial engine, achieved very high dog fighting maneuverability, mainly through lack of robustness and firepower to limit weight, while the Western fighters were more robustness and firepower oriented. Initially, in the 30s, they (western fighters) were called Pursuit aircraft, and were more aimed at interception and not classic dog fighting I believe.
The big weakness for the Japanese fighters in WW2 was the lack of self sealing fuel tanks. They saved weight without the self sealing fuel tanks and the range of the Japanese Zero was very impressive.
Early Japanese fighters like the Zero did have this fault. Later Japanese designs tended to have more armor and self sealing tanks and were more robust and "western" like (think the Ki-61 Tony, the George, etc).
titsonritz
06-15-21, 22:59
This seems like a good place for this given the thread topic.
After several years of speculation concerning its whereabouts, a combat-veteran Curtiss Kittyhawk has again resurfaced in Egypt. The aircraft in question, Kittyhawk Mk.IA ET574, first came to light during early 2012 when an oil survey team stumbled across the well-preserved wreck in Egypt’s Al-Wadi al-Jadid desert near the El Farafra Oasis. Jakub Perka, a Polish engineer on the survey team, documented the discovery with a series of fascinating images which seemed almost impossible to believe at the time. How could this amazingly significant aircraft have survived all these years in the desert untouched by anything but sand, sun and wind?
Once historians dug into the story, we quickly learned that the aircraft had belonged to 260 Squadron of the Royal Air Force, and disappeared during a ferry flight on June 28th, 1942 with Flight Sergeant Dennis Copping at the controls. Copping was part of a two-ship formation flying defective aircraft from the landing ground at Biur el Baheira to 53RSU, a Recovery & Service Unit at Wadi Natruna, while the rest of his squadron made a hasty retreat from the advancing German Afrika Korps. Copping had to fly with the aircraft’s undercarriage fixed down. He had damaged the gear during a hard landing a day earlier; dazzled by the setting sun into misjudging his height above the runway. On the flight to the maintenance facility, his wingman noted light, but accurate flak. Unfortunately, Copping got well off course during the melee, but failed to respond by radio, or be persuaded via hand signals to correct his heading according to the pilot flying beside him. Eventually the wingman gave up and made off for his intended destination alone. Sadly, Copping was never seen again.
Cont...with some great photos...
Desert War Kittyhawk Unveiled in Egypt (http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/desert-war-kittyhawk-unveiled-in-egypt.html)
Depending upon criteria you nailed them.
P-51D for most relevant, and Me262 for most advanced that ever flew.
Early in the war the Spitfire, A6M Zero and Me109 ruled the skies
My personal favorites are the F4U Corsair, stunning plane plus Black Sheep fame and P-38s (a pair of them rescued my grandfathers damaged and alone B-24) and ran off multiple Fw-190s. Was his personal favorite plane of the entire war.
But of course lots of amazing stuff flew during 1939-1945 so it's hard to say "this one" was the most important. Same as with the other tank discussion, lots and lots of factors and "most advanced" isn't always enough to make a change, it's that combination of ability and numbers in theater.
On a comparison thread like this, a Corsair or Tempest or Hellcat couldn't even hope to fight a P47, TA152 or even P51 or certain Spitfire or Bf109 variants. European theater was fighting at ever increasing altitudes. CAP for a carrier at sea is a different animal altogether.
I think this is partly true. So many of these planes were so close in performance metrics, it comes down to 'flyability' and pilot skill.
P2Vaircrewman
06-16-21, 09:04
Had the war lasted a little longer the Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star might have been number one. I once flew in the training version, the T-33 when I was in the Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-80_Shooting_Star
As a Marine, the F4U will always be my favorite. But the poll is "pick the best fighter aircraft of WWII", so I chose the P-51, specifically the B/C/D variants. They enabled fighter escort all the way to Germany and not only did they down almost 5,000 aircraft over the war, they saved thousands of bomber crew lives. That alone increased their overall impact on the war well beyond just the planes they downed.
They also enjoyed a long service life after the war, which some of the other superb airframes did not.
If it’s 1v1 in a dogfight I think it would be hard to top the Spitfire XIV.
Hate to tell you this, but the Mustang was originally ordered by the British, not the US. So the statement that the US specified a long endurance is demonstrably false. The original Mustangs in the Mustang mk I and A 36 Apache (which was a dedicated ground attack aircraft) used Allison v-1710 engines which, like the P-40 or P-39, limited it to lower altitude roles. It wasn't until the British fitted the Mustang with the Merlin and its 2 stage supercharger that high altitude and a lower specific fuel consumption was realized.
The P-47 was not specified for by USAAC as a heavy attack fighter. Originally, it is just a fighter that could compete with German acft. It got there by happenstance and the evolution of the design (See p-43 lancer). It was designed around the specification for the use of a turbocharger with an R-2800 engine. (Actually, the first version used an inline Allison and was a failure) At the time, the Navy wanted supercharger and the AAC wanted turbochargers. (See p-38, p-39, B-17, B-24 and etc). Without getting into the weeds, US supercharger development was lacking. Plus a whole host of other reasons that take too long to address.
For those of you really interested,
Wwiiaircraftperformance.org is your friend.
crusader377
06-16-21, 12:38
If it’s 1v1 in a dogfight I think it would be hard to top the Spitfire XIV.
I tend to agree especially if the dogfight was near the Spitfires base. The only downside with the Spitfire was relatively short range but it was strong in every other area of air combat. It had a high top speed, very good agility, excellent climb rate, very good dive rate, well armed especially with the E wing it had 2x20 mm cannon and 2x .50 caliber machine guns. It didn't have the greatest durability but I would rather have a plane with the performance to avoid getting hit in the first place.
Since we had a good discussion on the best tank of WW2. I wanted to make a post on what in your opinion is the best fighter aircraft of WW2. I will have ten choices again and you can make two votes. Here are my thoughts:
1) Spitfire: Won the Battle of Britain, excellent dogfighter, good speed and climb rate, maintained its status as a top fighter throughout the war from 1939 to 1945. Widely built, served worldwide.
2) P-51 Mustang: Was able to escort allied bombers deep into the heart of Germany allowing the allies to substanially damage the German war effort and shorten the war. Also used in the the Pacific to escort B-29s into Japan. Good to excellent all-round performance, widely produced.
Honorable mention: ME-262. First operational jet fighter, pointed the way forward in aviation design, most innovative fighter, however too little to late.
Sorry is mispelled Spitfire in post.
No Lockheed P-38 Lightning no care. :cool:
titsonritz
06-16-21, 13:44
But of course lots of amazing stuff flew during 1939-1945 so it's hard to say "this one" was the most important. Same as with the other tank discussion, lots and lots of factors and "most advanced" isn't always enough to make a change, it's that combination of ability and numbers in theater.
Tuskegee Airmen, the 332nd Fighter Group, took down three Me-262s with their P-51s in a single mission.
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/tuskegee-airmen-vs-me-262s/
Diamondback
06-16-21, 17:04
The P-38's PTO success in large part was because George Kenney and the rest of MacArthur's component commanders had to scavenge and scrounge whatever of every other theater's rejects they could and MAKE them work, running their own "Product Improvement Programs" at Australian air depots and forwarding the resulting mods and their test results back to DC for other theaters' benefit. Those B-25s and B-26s that were covered in bolt-on machine gun packs with even more guns crammed into the nose? 5th AF's chief engineer Pappy Gunn figured that out. 75mm cannon-armed heavy-hitters? Ditto. Parachute-retarded bombs were another cast-aside prewar concept that got dusted off and put to good use...
To focus on the original question, I'm not sure there WAS a "Colt 6920 of WWII fighters"--they were all different horses for different courses, designed to different specific needs. I will note that the A6M and Bf109 were kept on far longer than they should have been; if Germany and Japan had started their next-gen fighter programs sooner the outcome would have been a lot closer and messier thing.
I guess this is a good place to point out that Kelly Johnson, he of Skunk Works, engineered the P-38.
crusader377
06-16-21, 21:35
To focus on the original question, I'm not sure there WAS a "Colt 6920 of WWII fighters"--they were all different horses for different courses, designed to different specific needs. I will note that the A6M and Bf109 were kept on far longer than they should have been; if Germany and Japan had started their next-gen fighter programs sooner the outcome would have been a lot closer and messier thing.
The Bf-109 and the Zero are two interesting planes. Yes both of them lasted throughout the war which was a relatively unique accomplishment. I think the Bf-109 held up better than the Zero with age but the Bf-109 was getting increasingly dated especially in 1944-45 when I became heavier and less agile for its bomber killing role. The Bf-109 was very easy to produce and relatively cheap hence the reasons why the Germans built 35,000 of them.
The Zero was probably one of the most agile planes in WW2 especially at slow speeds (under 250mph). However by 1943 the U.S. developed tactics to deal with the Zero very effectively.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-17-21, 00:09
I think that is the interesting part- that how good the fighter was is related to how well it was handled in its fight. Even a Wildcat could give a Zero a problem if flown correctly, ie play to its strengths and not make mistakes. Look what Chenault did with P40s against the Japanese in China. I doubt the F15 would have kept its 50-0 kill ratio in against the Warsaw Pact. I was listening to a padcast from an F14 pilot and he made the comment that you didn't want to lose focus in a fight with an F4 pilot. Some of those guys had lots of combat missions and a long time in the aircraft. I thought I read in Yeager's autobiography that he would embarrass guys in their F100s when he had an F86.
Diamondback
06-17-21, 00:31
I think that is the interesting part- that how good the fighter was is related to how well it was handled in its fight. Even a Wildcat could give a Zero a problem if flown correctly, ie play to its strengths and not make mistakes. Look what Chenault did with P40s against the Japanese in China. I doubt the F15 would have kept its 50-0 kill ratio in against the Warsaw Pact. I was listening to a padcast from an F14 pilot and he made the comment that you didn't want to lose focus in a fight with an F4 pilot. Some of those guys had lots of combat missions and a long time in the aircraft. I thought I read in Yeager's autobiography that he would embarrass guys in their F100s when he had an F86.
There's a rather controversial (among fighter jock circles) photo from a mock dogfight where ADTAC put up a couple relic F-106's against a couple brand new Tomcats, and the Navy guys didn't like that you can clearly see the Tomcat pilot's helmet neatly centered on the pipper for the Six's Gatling.
Chennault also said if his guys and the Japanese had traded planes, he'd have been able to work out the Do/Don't tactics and soon they'd be whupping Japanese P-40s with their Zeros. At the end of the day, a great deal is pilot experience--and this is what hamstrung Japan because they never rotated anyone home to share Lessons Learned, you were sent out to stay until either victorious or dead.
Diamondback
06-17-21, 00:43
I guess this is a good place to point out that Kelly Johnson, he of Skunk Works, engineered the P-38.
Helped immensely by his strongarming Allison into building an opposite-turning "left hand" version of their V-1710 engine so the engines canceled out each other's torque. Imagine what coulda been if he coulda gotten a lefty Merlin or Griffon like powered the late Mustangs and Spitfires...
Chennault also said if his guys and the Japanese had traded planes, he'd have been able to work out the Do/Don't tactics and soon they'd be whupping Japanese P-40s with their Zeros. At the end of the day, a great deal is pilot experience--and this is what hamstrung Japan because they never rotated anyone home to share Lessons Learned, you were sent out to stay until either victorious or dead.
Germans also had a "fly or die" policy but scary enough how many 100+ aces still flying at the end of the war.
The Japanese lost their core fighter talent at Midway, after that it was things like the Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot. You can't replace talent with new guys.
crusader377
06-17-21, 06:31
Germans also had a "fly or die" policy but scary enough how many 100+ aces still flying at the end of the war.
The Japanese lost their core fighter talent at Midway, after that it was things like the Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot. You can't replace talent with new guys.
The German airforce by 1944-45 was an interesting beast. On one hand you had a small and slowly diminishing core of the airforce which was made up of some of the finest, most experience pilots to ever fly but on the other hand you had a bunch of rookie pilots which had under 50 hours of flight time which were basically cannon fodder.
crusader377
06-17-21, 08:50
Helped immensely by his strongarming Allison into building an opposite-turning "left hand" version of their V-1710 engine so the engines canceled out each other's torque. Imagine what coulda been if he coulda gotten a lefty Merlin or Griffon like powered the late Mustangs and Spitfires...
Probably you would have had an aircraft with performance similiar to the de Havilland Hornet. A twin engine RAF fighter which was introduced just after WW2 with a top speed of 475 mph. Remember the Allison engine on the P-38 was a slightly older design than the RR Merlin or the Packard version of the Merlin. The Merlin had better altitude performance and a better power to weight ratio on the engine.
I think that is the interesting part- that how good the fighter was is related to how well it was handled in its fight. Even a Wildcat could give a Zero a problem if flown correctly, ie play to its strengths and not make mistakes. Look what Chenault did with P40s against the Japanese in China. I doubt the F15 would have kept its 50-0 kill ratio in against the Warsaw Pact. I was listening to a padcast from an F14 pilot and he made the comment that you didn't want to lose focus in a fight with an F4 pilot. Some of those guys had lots of combat missions and a long time in the aircraft. I thought I read in Yeager's autobiography that he would embarrass guys in their F100s when he had an F86.
That's the whole point of Topgun and Red Flag: maximizing YOUR aircrafts potential and exploiting the enemy's weaknesses.
RE: F14, Ward Carroll has a great series of F14 vids on YT. He was a long-time RIO and author.
Diamondback
06-17-21, 10:59
Germans also had a "fly or die" policy but scary enough how many 100+ aces still flying at the end of the war.
The Japanese lost their core fighter talent at Midway, after that it was things like the Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot. You can't replace talent with new guys.
It's a lot easier to survive "fly or die" when your opposition is trying to Zerg-rush you with poorly-trained, undernourished peasants who've barely completed flight training. For the most part, Erich Hartmann might as well have been flying against hobbyist pilots in Cessnas or Piper Cubs... USN practice was after every cruise, the carrier air group's squadrons were broken up and their pilots reassigned to form cadres training up new squadrons, while another airgroup worked up to Car Quals ready to take their place as soon as the ship got out of refit--a never-ending conveyor belt that sent fatigued pilots ashore to teach while they recovered and fresh ones benefiting from the veterans' Lessons Learned, or perhaps "teeth in a shark's jaw" is a better comparison.
It's a lot easier to survive "fly or die" when your opposition is trying to Zerg-rush you with poorly-trained, undernourished peasants who've barely completed flight training. For the most part, Erich Hartmann might as well have been flying against hobbyist pilots in Cessnas or Piper Cubs... USN practice was after every cruise, the carrier air group's squadrons were broken up and their pilots reassigned to form cadres training up new squadrons, while another airgroup worked up to Car Quals ready to take their place as soon as the ship got out of refit--a never-ending conveyor belt that sent fatigued pilots ashore to teach while they recovered and fresh ones benefiting from the veterans' Lessons Learned, or perhaps "teeth in a shark's jaw" is a better comparison.
Current CAG operations are very similar. No active combat and attrition by being shot down, but a Navy aviator/NFO usually stays with one squadron for two cruises before moving on to teach or go into leadership/CAG staff. The Navy really figured out their conveyor belt replacement training in WW2. It worked.
Not limited to WW2 AC, Ward Carroll goes through his list of the top 18 fighters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4TxgyL564s
It's a lot easier to survive "fly or die" when your opposition is trying to Zerg-rush you with poorly-trained, undernourished peasants who've barely completed flight training. For the most part, Erich Hartmann might as well have been flying against hobbyist pilots in Cessnas or Piper Cubs... USN practice was after every cruise, the carrier air group's squadrons were broken up and their pilots reassigned to form cadres training up new squadrons, while another airgroup worked up to Car Quals ready to take their place as soon as the ship got out of refit--a never-ending conveyor belt that sent fatigued pilots ashore to teach while they recovered and fresh ones benefiting from the veterans' Lessons Learned, or perhaps "teeth in a shark's jaw" is a better comparison.
Sure, that's a real factor. But it's still kinda impressive when a guy like Rudel wrecks shop on EVERYTHING in the Eastern Front.
Obviously I think "our" current system is far superior, but the fact that those guys performed that well under that totalitarian system in itself is kind of impressive. I think Rudel claimed another dozen or so tanks after having a leg amputated.
Sure, that's a real factor. But it's still kinda impressive when a guy like Rudel wrecks shop on EVERYTHING in the Eastern Front.
Obviously I think "our" current system is far superior, but the fact that those guys performed that well under that totalitarian system in itself is kind of impressive. I think Rudel claimed another dozen or so tanks after having a leg amputated.
A lot of the earlier Luftwaffe pilots cut their teeth in the Spanish Civil War and really had serious training before WW2 kicked off, as losses mounted training suffered along with getting quality pilots.
If the Germans rotated out some their aces back to training and development, the Allied losses would have mounted and it might prolonged the air war a bit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.