# Best all-round fighter of WWII



## Oskar the Pilot (Feb 21, 2012)

This is a pretty open question, I guess, but I'm asking what the supreme, best all-round dogfighter of World war II was. On this poll, I listed what have been said to be some of the best fighters.

Let the voting begin! *IF YOU REPLY PLEASE VOTE ASWELL*

*EDIT, PLEASE READ: I know this is a bit troublesome, but I'm changing it to the best overall FIGHTER, instead of dogfighter. Thank you! *


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 21, 2012)

When I see polls like this, I usually focus in on my beloved Corsair. But before I voted, I thought it through. Considering firepower, range, versatility, bomb capacity, ground attack, carrier capable (that narrows it down), survivability, manuverability, rate of climb, etc, etc, etc., I just have to stick with the Corsair.


----------



## FalkeEins (Feb 21, 2012)

..what it is 'dogfighter' or best 'all round' - and hasn't this poll been done before ?

....FWIW my own choice as "Dogfighter" has to be the Spitfire or possibly the Yak 3 but I don't usually participate in these types of threads ..so many variables that the discussion usually ends going up round and round...having said that, you probably left the best one out ! I've just read Roland Beamont's 'Tempest over Europe'. In his book Beamont describes the comparative testing he undertook at the end of the war. He was a huge fan of the later marks of (Griffon-engined) Spitfire of course, although he describes the P-51 as a true fighter pilots aeroplane, although not quite as handy in the dogfight....but surpassing all of these in Beamont's view - and able to take on the Luftwaffe's Ta 152 and beat it low down- was the Hawker TEMPEST V.


----------



## cimmex (Feb 21, 2012)

What is a Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV*E*, never heard before?
cimmex


----------



## Oskar the Pilot (Feb 21, 2012)

cimmex said:


> What is a Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV*E*, never heard before?
> cimmex



E is my personal favourite wing fitting for the XIV, and possibly the best.


----------



## jim (Feb 21, 2012)

Best all around fighter and best all around dog fighter is two diferent things
With Me 262 out of the competition I vote for P38 L because of the safety of two engines, the central placed armament, the turbosuperchargers,the range, the ydraylicaly boosted ailerons , the combat flaps, the opposite turning propellers, the tricycle landing gear,the 360 canopy. Of caurse it was the most expensive as well, only America could have built it , and in a low level, low speed turning fight it would be in trouble


----------



## cimmex (Feb 21, 2012)

thks


----------



## Oskar the Pilot (Feb 21, 2012)

At the moment my vote is going to either the Spit or the Wulf, but I'll see what you guys have to say...


----------



## T Bolt (Feb 21, 2012)

P-47
Good fighter, could take a tremendous beating and terrific firepower with those 8 fifties. My father was in a column of P.O.W.s when 2 mistakingly made a strafing run on them. He said he never wanted to go through something as terrible at that again.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 21, 2012)

If it is best "dogfighter" then I vote for the Spitfire FXIVE.

If it was best all around I would think the P-51 and maybe the T-Bolt.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 21, 2012)

cimmex said:


> What is a Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV*E*, never heard before?
> cimmex



The E wing has 0.50" mgs in the inner gun ports and 20mm cannon in the outer gun ports of the inner wing, giving a total of 2 0.50s and 2 20s.


----------



## johnbr (Feb 21, 2012)

For me it is the K-84 good speed and firepower.It to bad the Japanese did not have 130 octane fuel.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 21, 2012)

Well my vote was the P-38L, because I was thinking best "overall" fighter. A myriad of uses. Then I read "dogfighter".......guess I should read and then vote. Of the choices listed, as listed, I would go with the Bf 109. And I would complete that selection by making it the Bf 109F. I think that particular model would have the best chance overall in air combats versus the others on the list.

And now that it this topic is "overall" and not "dogfighter" only, I will stay with my orginal choice of the P-38L. I should be a politician.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 22, 2012)

I weighed generic _best_ P-47 and F4U and flipped a coin but then turned the coin over and finally just voted my bias: USN of course...


----------



## Oskar the Pilot (Feb 23, 2012)

For some reason I'm rooting for the Focke Wulf 190D-9, could someone explain to me why? Is the Wulf a good fighter?


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 23, 2012)

So difficult to decide, there are so many great aircraft and all very useful highly competent in their own way.

Spit, Mustand, Wulf 109 for me in that order.

Just don't ask me why. lol


----------



## wuzak (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm a little confused....

The OP clearly states the best all-around _dogfighter_ of WW2. Yet the P-47 is winning. Am I missing something?


----------



## marshall (Feb 23, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I'm a little confused....
> 
> The OP clearly states the best all-around _dogfighter_ of WW2. Yet the P-47 is winning. Am I missing something?




Maybe because the thread title says "best all-round fighter" and in the poll question "best all-round dogfighter" so that can make some confusion.


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Feb 23, 2012)

I'd agree with Mike in the fact that if this was "best over all fighter" I'd choose the P-38 in a heartbeat. But in terms of sheer dogfighting, I'll vote for the Yak-3

Edit: didn't read re-read Oskars post. Argh!


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2012)

Yak-3 could be easily the winner under 15000 ft, but maybe Spitfire is the best above 20000 ft? And then the P-47 above 30000 ft?


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Feb 23, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Yak-3 could be easily the winner under 15000 ft, but maybe Spitfire is the best above 20000 ft? And then the P-47 above 30000 ft?



I'd agree with that. Although, in terms of a dogfight, I'd rather have a P-51 than a P-47 at 30,000


----------



## diddyriddick (Feb 23, 2012)

For overall performance, I would vote for the 190 or the Spit. However, the Corsair wasn't at very much of a disadvantage and could do it all from a flight deck with no land in miles.

Corsair.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 23, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> I'd agree with that. Although, in terms of a dogfight, I'd rather have a P-51 than a P-47 at 30,000



And I would still rather have a Spitfire XIV over a P-51 at 30,000ft.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 23, 2012)

wuzak said:


> And I would still rather have a Spitfire XIV over a P-51 at 30,000ft.


provided you are dogfighting within 50 miles of aerodrome , I did a little test and used Google earth and drew an operational range circle around , try it with an area your familiar with , for Australia the Spit would have trouble going between Melbourne and Sydney and have proper reserves without refuelling


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Feb 23, 2012)

wuzak said:


> And I would still rather have a Spitfire XIV over a P-51 at 30,000ft.


I don't know too much about Spits so I have no idea as to whether or not I'd fly a Mk XIV over a P-51 at those altitudes


----------



## brucejscott (Feb 25, 2012)

Have to vote for the Corsair. Fast as a thief, maneuverable, able to take a beating and dish it out. Equally adapt at mixing it up in a furball or killin' crunchies. Plus no water cooled engine that takes a dive after one hit.


----------



## Kryten (Feb 25, 2012)

deployment of the F4 to the ETO would have helped, but it didnt so we will never know how well or not it would have stacked up against the luftwaffe!


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 25, 2012)

Didn't vote. Can't really vote without knowing the WHAT IS EXPECTED of this so called best. What is the maximum altitude it must be able to perform at? If the minimum altitude that this fighter must be able to reach is set at 40,000ft. That eliminates the Zero and Yak-3. If it must be able to fly at least 2,000 mls. That eliminates all but the P-38, P-51 and P-47. I think the F4U could be modified to fly that distance. At 2,000 mls. minimum you better add the P-63 to that list. Is a minimum load carrying ability going to be required? Say 1,500 lbs. That would knock about everything but the US aircraft off that list. Or does this A/C have to be able to reach 20,000ft. in around 5 minutes and 30,000ft. in less than 11 minutes? Wow, you can kiss over half that list goodby. My point is, you can't pick a best unless you have minimum levels of performance that will be expected of this fighter in order for this so called best to fill the needs that will be required of it. Of course, that is just my opinion.


----------



## tbfighterpilot (Feb 25, 2012)

It was a tough choice between the P-51 and the P-47 for me. The P-51 was known as one of the best fighters ever, but the P-47 was very tough, and with 8 .50 cal machine guns, it could definately kill. I did end up voting for the P-51.


----------



## stona (Feb 25, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> I don't know too much about Spits so I have no idea as to whether or not I'd fly a Mk XIV over a P-51 at those altitudes



Which illustrates the problem with these polls. Too many variables. Above 30.000ft I'd take a Ta152!
I might not have the range to make it to the fight though.
I haven't voted 
Steve


----------



## juhaerik (Mar 3, 2012)

My best dogfighter would be Spit IV - and best all-around fighter P47, possibly 190. P-51 - jack of all trades, master of none.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Mar 3, 2012)

I voted for the T-bolt. With proper drop tanks it had good range. And in the M and N models this was even better. It had exceptional firepower. With the air cooled radial and great construction it could and did take a great pounding and still could make it home, and this made it a better ground attack machine also. It could carry two 1,000 pound bombs or rockets. Most of the time it was loaded with 500 pounders. The Corsair would be my second pick.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 3, 2012)

I am (and well known for this) a passionate advocate of the Mustang (B/C/D/K/H) strategic importance. Having siad that the US could have picked one fighter and it would have served well in every thretre, for every serice, for every role - and I chose the F4U. Nothing else in the US arsenal could have served everay role with few detractions and many superlatives as this big ungainly heavy ugly superb cost effective multi role beast.

The LW did not want any part of this SOB in the ETO or MTO.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Mar 3, 2012)

I thought the LW did face it. Did not the British use it off of their carriers in the MTO or am I wrong?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2012)

Corsairs were used above Norway, eg. as escorts in the sorties by Barracudas vs. Tirpitz.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2012)

Yes - the Corsair appeared in a very small way with RN.


----------



## renrich (Mar 4, 2012)

No combat was seen by Corsairs in the ETO although it was used on a few escort missions. A shame since it would have acquited itself well. If Marshall had not had an extreme bias against the Marine Corps the Corsair might have been used against V1 sites off of CVEs. I second drgondog's post strongly.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 4, 2012)

The Fw 190D-13 had hydraulically boosted ailerons just as the P-38L improving upon its already impressive rate of roll.


----------



## cimmex (Mar 4, 2012)

spicmart said:


> The Fw 190D-13 had hydraulically boosted ailerons just as the P-38L improving upon its already impressive rate of roll.



never heard of this, do you have a source?
cimmex


----------



## spicmart (Mar 4, 2012)

cimmex said:


> never heard of this, do you have a source?
> cimmex



Not directly, but there are several sources, also on this forum, who state this since the two remaining Doras (D-9 and D-13) in the US had their respective wings interchanged for a long time before that was corrected. They then found out that the D-13 has boosted ailerons. One has to look a little bit at the search function of this forum or google it. It's also stated on wikipedia (I know it's not the most reliable of sources).


----------



## cimmex (Mar 4, 2012)

I doubt of hydraulic boosted ailerons because no Fw 190 had a hydraulic system on board, all was powered electrically. Somewhere I read that the ailerons were boosted by spring tabs but could not find any reliable source up to now.
cimmex


----------



## Elmas (Mar 4, 2012)

with a DB 603 engine.......


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2012)

Wouldn't the Yak-3U have eaten Reggiane + 603 for breakfast?


----------



## spicmart (Mar 4, 2012)

With the Ta 152 the designers exchanged the electrical systems with hydraulics. The boosted ailerons were to be used in the 152 but had been fitted before in the D-13 which had features of both the 190s and 152s e.g. the cockpit was a hybrid. Some Doras also had the Ta 152 tail.


----------



## Ratsel (Mar 4, 2012)

WHat? No P-40 in the poll?


----------



## cimmex (Mar 4, 2012)

Concerning the landing gear at the Ta152 you are right it was hydraulically actuated. As the D-13 had the Jumo213E engine too it could be that there was also a hydraulic pump fitted but would love to find a prove for hydraulic boosted ailerons. I’ll mail Dietmar Hermann and ask, he is the expert for Ta152 and all Fw related questions
cimmex


----------



## spicmart (Mar 4, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Concerning the landing gear at the Ta152 you are right it was hydraulically actuated. As the D-13 had the Jumo213E engine too it could be that there was also a hydraulic pump fitted but would love to find a prove for hydraulic boosted ailerons. I’ll mail Dietmar Hermann and ask, he is the expert for Ta152 and all Fw related questions
> cimmex



This is a good idea.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 4, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Wouldn't the Yak-3U have eaten Reggiane + 603 for breakfast?



Wonder how good the Yak-3U really was as it had a large and heavy radial engine The Fw 190V1 had as small a wing as the Yak-3 and so did the He 100. So if one would have fitted the Shvetsov ASh-82FN into the german machines they should have similar performance, handling and agility.

So why was the Me 109 no good dogfighter despite being such a light weight fighter? I guess high speed manoeuverability was hampered by the one spar wing construction with its large cutouts for the main landing gear thus giving it bad torsional stiffness compard to other fighter designs. At low speed it was said to be very manoueverable afaik. Maybe someone knows more about it..


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 4, 2012)

spicmart said:


> This is a good idea.



The FW 190D-13 "Yellow 10" was found to have hydraulic boosted ailerons. For many years the airframe was mounted on the incorrect FW 190D-9 wings, when properly restored with the correct wings the discovery was made. Its mentioned in the book on yellow 10's restoration by Jerry Crandall who saw them.

Mwsserschmitt Secret Projects mentions that Messerschmitt though that a hydraulic servo might be neccessary on Jets like P.1101.


----------



## spicmart (Mar 4, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The FW 190D-13 "Yellow 10" was found to have hydraulic boosted ailerons. For many years the airframe was mounted on the incorrect FW 190D-9 wings, when properly restored with the correct wings the discovery was made. Its mentioned in the book on yellow 10's restoration by Jerry Crandall who saw them.



Like I said a few posts before.


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2012)

We're missing quit a few candidates. A glaring omissoin is the Lavochkin La-5 FN and La-7, both of which were better than the Me-109 and Fw-190's that were used in the Soviet Union war front, at least at their best altitudes, which is where they fought most of the time. The Soviets were cunning and ignored the high-latitude aircraft to bomb and strafe the German troops, so the German aircraft were FORCED to come down and fight or watch their own troops get killed. They didn't do all that well when they did. Definitely great fighters.

The P-38 is missing. Top USA mount, at least as far as the score of our aces go.

The Ki-100 is missing. It was possibly the best Japanese fighter ... or the Ki-84.

The Reggiane Re.2005 is missing. The Macchi-Castoldi MC.205 is missing. The Fieat G.55 is missing. All great fighters with short service lives due to the vagrancies of war.

The Hawker Tempest is missing. Definitely better than some of the listed competition.

C'mon, let's be fair and do another poll with the candidates well represented. Maybe a few more ...


----------



## wuzak (Mar 5, 2012)

GregP said:


> We're missing quit a few candidates. A glaring omissoin is the Lavochkin La-5 FN and La-7, both of which were better than the Me-109 and Fw-190's that were used in the Soviet Union war front, at least at their best altitudes, which is where they fought most of the time. The Soviets were cunning and ignored the high-latitude aircraft to bomb and strafe the German troops, so the German aircraft were FORCED to come down and fight or watch their own troops get killed. They didn't do all that well when they did. Definitely great fighters.
> 
> The P-38 is missing. Top USA mount, at least as far as the socre of out aces go.
> 
> ...




You could list all the fighters used in WW2 if you wanted.

But does it matter? The poll is about the best all-round _dogfighter_ and the leading aircraft at the moment is not one I would consider to be good as a _dogfighter_. And sometimes the reason those particular poll leading aircraft were chosen is because of their ground attack ability....

So, I don't think the poll is missing anything for leaving those you have suggested out!


----------



## Elmas (Mar 5, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Wouldn't the Yak-3U have eaten Reggiane + 603 for breakfast?




_“I returned to Lecce, as this airfield was only slightly damaged and I tought it would do very well as a second string, in case Grottaglie became overcrowded. After a pleasant meal of spaghetti with the Italian pilots, I took the opportunity of inspecting the Macchi 205s and a couple of Re 2001/5s (sic) I found parked near the flight offices. The Re 2001/5 s were fairly new to the Italian Air Force, and only a handful had been built. They had a wing shape very similar to the Spitfire, a powerful engine and were armed with four cannons (sic). Having had a dog-fight with one of them, I am convinced we would have been hard pressed to cope in our Spitfires operationally, if the Italians or Germans had had a few Squadrons equipped with these aircraft at the beginning of the Sicily campaign ot in operations from Malta. Fast, and with an excellent manoeuvrability, the Re 2001/5 was althogeter a superb aeroplane. Tough I didn’t get a chance to fly one, I did manage to fly the Macchi 205 and the Me 109G. Neither of these aircraft measured up to the capabilities of the Re 2001/5 series in manoeuvrability or rate of climb. (omissis) It is a pity, however, that no Re 2001/5 survive to this day, because they were fine examples of the Italian engineering craftmanship.”

Group Captain W.G.G. Duncan Smth, D.S.O., D.F.C., in “Spitfire into battle”, John Murray (Publishers), Paperback edition 2002, pag. 173-4._

And that was with a DB605, let's imagine with a DB603.....


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2012)

Re.2005 weighted empty 2600 kg, Yak-3U under 2300 kg.
The Re."2006" would've weighted maybe 3000 kg empty. For about the same power. Hence my conclusion about the winner 

The Yak-3 La-7 seem to fall in between Yak-3U and "2006" (and better than 2005), for dogfighter's comparison IMO.


----------



## jim (Mar 5, 2012)

GregP said:


> We're missing quit a few candidates. A glaring omissoin is the Lavochkin La-5 FN and La-7, both of which were better than the Me-109 and Fw-190's that were used in the Soviet Union war front, at least at their best altitudes, which is where they fought most of the time. The Soviets were cunning and ignored the high-latitude aircraft to bomb and strafe the German troops, so the German aircraft were FORCED to come down and fight or watch their own troops get killed. They didn't do all that well when they did. Definitely great fighters.
> 
> The P-38 is missing. Top USA mount, at least as far as the socre of out aces go.
> 
> ...


 
Mr GregP
a) When Germans had height advantages did not came down to fight but to bounce, as is the normal practice in every combat theater.Soviets suffered heavy losses this way and by 1944 had fighter patrols up to 6000m, usually american P-39s to cover their ground attack formations. La5FN ,as far as i know,could not use max power above 3000m. Mw 50 Bf 109s in my opinion were superior even to La7s .However ,How often was the use of Mw50 on the eastern front is a good question.
b) Soviet fighters on paper look very good. Yak 3 was only slightly smaller than 109 but was up to .... 1500 kgr (!!!) lighter in normal take off weight All other nations fighter gained weight as the war progressed only the soviets got lighter , and they claim that later all metal versions would be even lighter! What they sacrificed for such weight achievement?
What structural strength standards accepted ? What diving limits they had? Pilot protection? ( The japanese light fightres have been much critisized for their pilot protection)How much retained their performance in field conditions? What equipment they carried to be safe flying machines? They claim that were very easy to be flown ,easier than german fightes, but had no automatations at all , pilot should control all engines parameters, the same time german pilots all they had to do was push forward or retract the throttle
Everyone critisizes the Jumo 004 s 25 hours life duration but most praise the Vk 107 of Yak 9U and very late Yak 3s despite the fact it had a similar life duration and that, only if max power was not used! It also interesting that yak 3 would go from 1300 hp to 185o hp (vk 108) or take the heavy radial As 82 with almost no airframe modification or significant strenghtening ! Amazing achievement.
American Mustung units in Korea did not had problems with the yaks even at low alltitude. We must consider that evolution of german aircrafts was primary based on the needs of western front. Finally soviet test piltos judged the Dora much inferior to their own fighter, but their frontline units used captured Doras in action!!!! despite the fact certainly had plethora of fighters in 1945.( And the German reports appears the Dora to be very competitive against the soviets)
Even if you dont accep tthe above points you would accept that soviet fighters were very very specialized aircrafts and could not compete for all around best

G56 flew at 685-700 km/h with 1750 hp of Db603. Re 2006 calculated to be at 740 Km/h with the same engine(740 appears optimistic but should be somewhat faster than G56) Both should be very very strong dogfighters.


----------



## Elmas (Mar 5, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Re.2005 weighted empty 2600 kg, Yak-3U under 2300 kg.
> The Re."2006" would've weighted maybe 3000 kg empty. For about the same power. Hence my conclusion about the winner
> 
> The Yak-3 La-7 seem to fall in between Yak-3U and "2006" (and better than 2005), for dogfighter's comparison IMO.



Even in vertical? Of course I don't have the figures, but is most probable that the Re 2005/DB603 could outclimb Yak-3s at low levels.....
Not to say that just a one second burst of the armament of Re 2005 could pulverize a flock of Yaks.....


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2012)

Yak-3U has more power and less weight, so I'd say that vertical was the domain of the Yak. No doubt Regianne has more firepower 

It's easy to see why soviet fighters were of light weight, especially when compared with US planes - the weight of installed armament fuel was maybe half of what US 1-engined fighter were carrying. That was partly because soviet airframe designers were hampered by almost mandatory use of the 1100-1200 HP Klimov engine for the better part of the war; the VK 105 was pretty light, though. So if we use a not so powerful engine, and want at least some performance, the weaponry remains at two barrels, with enough fuel for flying about an hour (with allowances for climb combat). The later VK 107 108 engines were of dubious quality until 1945, so the only engine that was both powerful and reliable was the M-82/ASh-82 series; maybe it was soviet mistake not to press on with the M-71 series (2000+ HP in 1941, flying in prototypes). 

As for Re.2006 attaining 740 km/h with 1750 HP, that figure should be reduced for some 50 km/h? G.55 flying at 685 seem okay, 700 km/h is a t too high - Spit XIV was burning midnight oil to attain more than 700 km/h.


----------



## jim (Mar 5, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Yak-3U has more power and less weight, so I'd say that vertical was the domain of the Yak. No doubt Regianne has more firepower
> 
> It's easy to see why soviet fighters were of light weight, especially when compared with US planes - the weight of installed armament fuel was maybe half of what US 1-engined fighter were carrying. That was partly because soviet airframe designers were hampered by almost mandatory use of the 1100-1200 HP Klimov engine for the better part of the war; the VK 105 was pretty light, though. So if we use a not so powerful engine, and want at least some performance, the weaponry remains at two barrels, with enough fuel for flying about an hour (with allowances for climb combat). The later VK 107 108 engines were of dubious quality until 1945, so the only engine that was both powerful and reliable was the M-82/ASh-82 series; maybe it was soviet mistake not to press on with the M-71 series (2000+ HP in 1941, flying in prototypes).
> 
> As for Re.2006 attaining 740 km/h with 1750 HP, that figure should be reduced for some 50 km/h? G.55 flying at 685 seem okay, 700 km/h is a t too high - Spit XIV was burning midnight oil to attain more than 700 km/h.


Mr Tomo Pauk
Yak 3 empty weight was 2105 kgr with 575 kgr Vk 105 1300 hp
Yak 3U empty weight 2273 with 900 kgr As82 FNU ! 
These numbers appears normal to you? In my opinion can not be exlplained by just reduced fuel and weapons
Bf 109G6,only slightly bigger,was 2250 empty. With the same armament as yak 3 and fuel for combat flying of an hour had a normal take off weigh of 3150 kgr. Yak 3 normal take off weight was 2692 kgr! I am very curius to find data about the structure strength of the Yak. I know Equipment,was very poor
Re 2005 with Mw 50 (1700 ps ) reached 700kmh /h .(But the airframe was not judged strong enouph for such speeds by the germans! It appears soviets did not have such problems with the wooden yak 3!) Db603 with 1750 hp and higher critical altitude should achieve slightly better speed


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2012)

The numbers seem dubious, I agree, so I've checked out some other Soviet fighters of ww2.
LaGG-3 weighted empty between 2530-2600 kg (M-105), La-5 2600, La-5F 2580, La-5FN 2680. So despite acquiring ever heavier engines, the empty weight remained within few % of difference. So the figure for Yak-3U gained credibility in my eyes.
Further, Soviets were using far more wood (in weight numerically) during the 1st war years than at the end, and, for the same strength, wood is/was heavier. So the late models should be hardly gaining any weight.

I'd really like to see the good data for Re.2005 reaching 700 km/h.
The MW-50 would be engaged under the full throttle height anyway - the air is thick there - so the speed gain could've been 10 km/h, so we are still under 650 km/h. It took Bf-109 to have an engine of 2000 PS (Sondernotleistung) in order to achieve more than 700 km/h. Even the 109G-6-AS with 1,7ata (at 5800 m, MW-50 engaged, = 1800 PS?) was good for 695 km/h. And it was far smaller than Re.2005.


----------



## jim (Mar 5, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The numbers seem dubious, I agree, so I've checked out some other Soviet fighters of ww2.
> LaGG-3 weighted empty between 2530-2600 kg (M-105), La-5 2600, La-5F 2580, La-5FN 2680. So despite acquiring ever heavier engines, the empty weight remained within few % of difference. So the figure for Yak-3U gained credibility in my eyes.
> Further, Soviets were using far more wood (in weight numerically) during the 1st war years than at the end, and, for the same strength, wood is/was heavier. So the late models should be hardly gaining any weight.
> 
> ...



Mr Tomo Pauk
1) The phenomenon of an airplane using heavier engines without gaining weight overall would be really unique. I am not refering only to engines weight. More power needs more fuel and stronger sunspension points, more torque needs bigger rudders,more speed needs more skin strength , higher speeds manouvers need more airframe strength etc. All these soviet fighters are extremely light for their powers. Unless soviet engineers had knowledges that the rest of the world lacked , they sacrificed aircraft qualities to keep weight that low.
2) Soviets sources made varius claims for their aircraft. Il2s outmanouvering 109s, Il10s outrunning late Fw 190 A8s ,Yaks and Las superior to anything in the world.I have several such books Reality says that most of these fighters were judged unsafe and withdrew immediately after ww2,when pilots were not anymore consumables .An Il2 was discovered some years ago and the anglosaxons reserchers were speechles by its extremely crude construction 
3) Bf 1o9 K4 and G10 reached 700 kmh/h on 1.8 ata too .
4) Re 2005 was much cleaner airframe than G6/AS and cleaner even than K4
5) Re 2005 reached 650+ kmh/h with german built engine and german propeller without Mw50


----------



## drgondog (Mar 5, 2012)

wuzak said:


> You could list all the fighters used in WW2 if you wanted.
> 
> But does it matter? The poll is about the best all-round _dogfighter_ and the leading aircraft at the moment is not one I would consider to be good as a _dogfighter_. And sometimes the reason those particular poll leading aircraft were chosen is because of their ground attack ability....
> 
> So, I don't think the poll is missing anything for leaving those you have suggested out!



Wuzak - you are correct but perhaps further definition needs to be emphasized?

Point interceptor/dogfighter versus long range dogfighter capable of wresting control of the air by performance attributes that could be easily exploited without fighting the point interceptor best performance attributes?

For example if Allies in UK desired combat over Belin, only the US Fighters could combine long range with high performance - and do so at altitudes They choose to fight. (Exception Zero in case of range). Launching Spitfire VIII, IX, XIV etc or Ta 152 or F8 or Fw 190D or Me 109K or any VVS fighter to fight over Berlin guarantees none return. Gret dogfighters for maybe one fight over Berlin - then the force reduces to zero.


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2012)

Hello Jim,

The Soviet pilots we have had talk at our museum contadict your number 1 assertion above. They said the German almost always came down to fight when the Soviets started straffing German troops. I was not there ... just relating what I have heard in person. The Soviet pilots might not have been telling the truth, but I think they were.

The Yak's are strong enough. They are stressed to about 8g at typical combat weights ... at least ours is. It flies quite well and is more maneuverable than our Mustangs.

I have never heard the Soviet fighter engines called "reliable," though they DID operate in condtions where other engines could not. As far as I know, there is only one running Klimov in the world (in a MiG-3), and it seems to break every time they start it up! The only MiG-3 that flies has an Allison in it, again as far as I know at this time.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2012)

Hi, Mr, Jim,

I'll point you again to the percentage of the wood in the soviet airframes, that was getting smaller in the second half of the war. The one part made from wood is heavier than an similar part that is made of light alloy. So while engine weight did increase, the weight savings achieved via replacing wooden parts by light alloy ones were canceling out plenty of the increased powerplant weight. So there was nothing that exceptional about soviet engineers (they were as good / as bad as in other major countries), they simply put a better material to use when it was becoming easier to obtain. Eg. LaGG-3 was deemed by soviet as too heavy - rightly so, since the take off weight was comparable with far more powerful Bf-109s. Japanese were to experience the reverse - they tried to make a 'wooden clone' of the Ki-84 Hayate (the Tachikawa Ki-106), and were unpleasantly surprised by it's bigger weight.
Soviets were not the only ones that were to issue a lighter late planes - NAA achieved same with P-51H other lightweight Mustangs. 

As for what (not only) Soviet were claiming: we need to divide propaganda of ww2 and reality. 
In reality the best fighter for Soviet needs was P-39 for the majority of the war, and numerous interviews of VVS pilots back that up; it was one of rare fighters there that was almost never photographed with bombs rockets, and it's armament was being reduced instead of increased. 
The RAF claimed that they swooped the sky of LW in 1941-42, it was not the case. The LW claimed that they dismantled RAF in BoB - not so. LW claimed hundreds of Soviet tanks destroyed during Kursk - wrong again. USAAF bomber gunners claimed more LW fighters than it was produced. So when one reads that Yaks Laggs were superior than anything that flies, it's a state propaganda bull $h. The Soviet ww2 pilots have had a healthy respect for LW fighters, esp. for Bf-109.

As for Il-2 build quality - it was built as T-34, to serve well in the war of attrition. Hence it was built in 30000+ copies. Had the Soviets opted for a more refined build, they would've produced maybe 15-20000 copies, and gave the chance for LW fighters Flak. Not so - swamp them with a great number of well armored armed planes so the ground forces can breach the line and pour into the breach. Definitely not US or UK or German style of warfare, but Soviet/Russian style 100%. In case one want a more sophisticated plane, to serve well in ww2 and beyond, there is Pe-2 and, later Tu-2.

The K-4 and G-10 have had the engines that could handle 1,8 ata/~1800 HP, not so for Re.2005, with what is basically a 605A engine? 
Re.2005 was cleaner airframe, but it had wings of almost 20% more wing area. So if any Italian plane is to better the 700 km/h mark with DB-605, perhaps that's MC.205 with the 605AS engine?
The 650 km/h figure is again more believable for MC.205 (because of smaller wing area; it was faster that other 5 series on same power), but in case you have good data that can confirm 650 for Re.2005, please share.

Added: the Bf-109G-6, with DB-605A managing 1,30 ata, no gondola cannons, was as fast as Re.2005 pulling 1,42 ata - 630 km/h both.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 5, 2012)

jim said:


> Yak 3U empty weight 2273 with 900 kgr As82 FNU !



i think tomo talking of 3U with VK 107 engine go in a little production, not of 3U prototypw with Ash 82.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 5, 2012)

GregP said:


> I have never heard the Soviet fighter engines called "reliable," though they DID operate in condtions where other engines could not. As far as I know, there is only one running Klimov in the world (in a MiG-3), and it seems to break every time they start it up! The only MiG-3 that flies has an Allison in it, again as far as I know at this time.



Why a Klimov on a MiG-3?? amateur rebuild?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2012)

The Yak-3 with VK 107 is stated to have 2346 kg empty (the 107 was as heavy as single stage Merlin, or DB-605), while the Yak-3U (with AsH-82) weights 2273 kg empty. Source: Soviet combat aircraft, by Gordon Khazanov.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2012)

Russian guns were usually lighter than other countries guns and near the end of the war they came out with even lighter models. They treated the guns as disposable rather than rebuildable and accepted a much shorter gun life than other countries. They accepted a somewhat similar solution to the engines, trading shorter overhaul life for better performance at the same or similar weights. 

When comparing the weights of the engines be aware that the As-82 does not have a radiator/coolant/duct which tends to skew the result. Many countries had prototypes that were much lighter than service aircraft, the Russians seem especially prone to this as the prototypes were much more carefully finished. The mostly wood production planes tended to have large quantities of extra glue slopped into and around joints, and/or extra 'filler' stuffed into gaps.


----------



## Ratsel (Mar 5, 2012)

IMO each country during WWII had their own 'definition' of a 'best all-round fighter'. US thought it was the P-51, Germans the Me 109, Russian the P-39 perhaps, the Finns the Brewster Buffalo, etc., etc.. 

So there cannot be 'one' single 'best all-round' aircraft. Thats Fantasy thinking. Think more 'combination' of fighters/aircraft. ie: P-51 with B-17 (ETO), Me 109 with Fw190 (ETO), Me 109 Stuka (ETO), Hurricane with Spitfire (MTO), P-40 with P-38 (MTO), Corsair Hellcat (PTO), P-40 with P-38 (PTO), that kinda thinking.

Nobody can deny that P-51 by themselves or B-17 by themselves not much threat against Luftwaffe. Put them together, now thats a devistating 1-2 punch as many Luftwaffe pilots found out.

just my opinion without political overtones.


----------



## Readie (Mar 5, 2012)

Ratsel said:


> IMO each country during WWII had their own 'definition' of a 'best all-round fighter'. US thought it was the P-51, Germans the Me 109, Russian the P-39 perhaps, the Finns the Brewster Buffalo, etc., etc..
> 
> So there cannot be 'one' single 'best all-round' aircraft. Thats Fantasy thinking. Think more 'combination' of fighters/aircraft. ie: P-51 with B-17 (ETO), Me 109 with Fw190 (ETO), Me 109 Stuka (ETO), Hurricane with Spitfire (MTO), P-40 with P-38 (MTO), Corsair Hellcat (PTO), P-40 with P-38 (PTO), that kinda thinking.
> 
> ...




I agree Ratsel.
All the planes you mention were devastating together. There are others of course, and it would make a good thread exploring the best combination.
John


----------



## wuzak (Mar 5, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Wuzak - you are correct but perhaps further definition needs to be emphasized?
> 
> Point interceptor/dogfighter versus long range dogfighter capable of wresting control of the air by performance attributes that could be easily exploited without fighting the point interceptor best performance attributes?
> 
> For example if Allies in UK desired combat over Belin, only the US Fighters could combine long range with high performance - and do so at altitudes They choose to fight. (Exception Zero in case of range). Launching Spitfire VIII, IX, XIV etc or Ta 152 or F8 or Fw 190D or Me 109K or any VVS fighter to fight over Berlin guarantees none return. Gret dogfighters for maybe one fight over Berlin - then the force reduces to zero.



Just because they have long range doesn't make them superior _dogfighters_. Maybe superior offensive fighters, but not dogfighters.

I do get teh impression that the only reason why the Spitfire's range wasn't extended was because teh desire to do so wasn't there.


----------



## GregP (Mar 6, 2012)

Spent a day with Steve Hinton Jr. today and asked him about the Yak-3 in our museum. Now Stevo is not a combat pilot, but is the two-time defending Reno National Air Race Champion in the U.S.A. and a VERY accomplished pilot. How many guys his age are two-time air race champions? He has handled several rather spine-tingling emergencies with calmness and maturity.

First a note about our Yak-3. It is owned by Ed Maloney, founder of the Planes of Fame Museum, and is a unique conversion. It was converted from a Yak-11 into a Yak-3. The Yak-11 is a radial-powered trainer. MOST Yak-11 trainers were very different machines from Yak-3’s and the wing structure was completely different, and had a different airfoil. The Yak-11 used by Ed to make our Yak-3 was a very different machine. It was made from a Yak-3! So, our “Yak-11” was actually a Yak-3 that was converted to a trainer, and the resulting machine we made is a Yak-3 fuselage joined to the Yak-3 wing that was taken from a Yak 11 that was made from a Yak-3.

So we really DO have a Yak-3 in this case, albeit with an Allison V-1710 engine.

I asked Steve how it handled and he says it easily out-maneuvers the P-51D Mustang he usually flies and cruises just as fast at 20-30 (that is 2,000 RPM @ 30 inches of manifold pressure[MP]) as the Mustang. Steve Hinton Sr.’s Mustang, Wee Willy, is a “fast one,” and cruises at about 270 mph (235 knots) at a much lower power than most Mustangs do. Most Mustangs have to hold 3-4 inches more MP to keep up at the same speed. The Yak 3 cruises the same at 20-30, and that is a relatively low-power and common Allison cruise number. It also accelerates as well with the Allison 1710. He has no doubt it is as fast or faster than the specs, but we don’t do many full-power runs since we are not at war and fund our own engines and propellers. We really only use full power on takeoff, and sometimes not even then as most WWII fighters are relatively overpowered compared with civilian aircraft. 

Basically, then, the Yak-3 is a better dogfighter than the P-51 at low altitude around 300 mph and he has not encountered any WWII fighter aircraft yet that outmaneuvers it.

Just some info that is relevant but was not developed in WWII combat.


----------



## Arossihman (Mar 6, 2012)

I will again pull the trigger for my beloved t-bolt....it did well as a dogfighter and proved very useable in many other roles. The t-bolt had more surviveability than most on the survey which brought home and protected our most vital asset which eventually helped us triumpf over our foes...the allied fighter pilot being that vital asset!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 6, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Just because they have long range doesn't make them superior _dogfighters_. Maybe superior offensive fighters, but not dogfighters.
> 
> I do get teh impression that the only reason why the Spitfire's range wasn't extended was because teh desire to do so wasn't there.



I know you are correct if the context is an aircraft whose prime mode of killing is to engage in a turning/climbing fight. Aces didn't do any of that unless a.) they were forced to fight that way in an unforseen situation, or b.) if that mode gave them the greatest advantage.

Every fighter pilot I have talked to over the last 60 years will tell you - "I want speed and altitude. I want the airplane that gives me the greatest opportunity to enter with high energy and disengage when it is a good idea to 'get out of town'. If you find yourself fooling around in a 'dogfight' of turning and manuevering, the guy you didn't see will kill you - even if it he is a relative low timer."

Granted, these were aces - but aces that flew 109s, 190s, Spits, 51's, 47's, F4U's and P-38s (and F-86/F4's also). Most of them were cocky enough to say "I'll beat you if I fly yours and you fly mine, but I prefer ________ (fill in the blank). Of the US pilots the dominant choices for those that flew multi fighters (including 4th FG Spitfire pilots and Jugs) the choices most often yielded "P-51/F4U"... and usually narrowed down to "I am faster, am just as manueverable, and know how to pick my fights when the other guy has an advantage that I need to be aware of". To them, that was Their definition of Best Dogfighter.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 6, 2012)

drgondog said:


> I know you are correct if the context is an aircraft whose prime mode of killing is to engage in a turning/climbing fight. Aces didn't do any of that unless a.) they were forced to fight that way in an unforseen situation, or b.) if that mode gave them the greatest advantage.
> 
> Every fighter pilot I have talked to over the last 60 years will tell you - "I want speed and altitude. I want the airplane that gives me the greatest opportunity to enter with high energy and disengage when it is a good idea to 'get out of town'. If you find yourself fooling around in a 'dogfight' of turning and manuevering, the guy you didn't see will kill you - even if it he is a relative low timer."
> 
> Granted, these were aces - but aces that flew 109s, 190s, Spits, 51's, 47's, F4U's and P-38s (and F-86/F4's also). Most of them were cocky enough to say "I'll beat you if I fly yours and you fly mine, but I prefer ________ (fill in the blank). Of the US pilots the dominant choices for those that flew multi fighters (including 4th FG Spitfire pilots and Jugs) the choices most often yielded "P-51/F4U"... and usually narrowed down to "I am faster, am just as manueverable, and know how to pick my fights when the other guy has an advantage that I need to be aware of". To them, that was Their definition of Best Dogfighter.



I agree with this. Just reading combat accounts shows little nose to nose dogfighting. The best fighter is probably not the best dogfighter and the best dogfighter is not the best fighter, which is redundant but the point is made. Fighter evolution always went toward the faster and higher, i.e., higher energy, not necessarily better turning. New technology tends to provide the best of all worlds.

Even the mighty F4U would not want to get into a turning fight with a Zero, but it had the power and speed to avoid this.


----------



## CORSNING (Mar 6, 2012)

Nice guys, I can't think of anything left to add to those statements.


----------



## Elmas (Mar 6, 2012)

I think that is just after the WWI that the Top Brasses of Air Staffs all over the world in a most stately way did emit this sentence "_The days of dogfighting are over"._
But.......
Just after the Corea experience (and the Vietnam...) USAF did emit the specification for the F-16 and nowadays it is most fashionable the vectorial thrust....
I have also intewieved, years ago, some Italian Aces af WWII, one of whom was an Instructor at the local AeroClub.
He exactly told me wath droondog reported, but also that the capacity of his aeroplane (a Macchi 205) to outturn the opponent on his tail saved his life.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 6, 2012)

Unfortunately, my choice for best all round fighter would have been the Spitfire Mk VIII, which had a very potent, and IMHO, unrivaled, combination of range, maneuverability, firepower and performance.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 6, 2012)

drgondog said:


> I know you are correct if the context is an aircraft whose prime mode of killing is to engage in a turning/climbing fight. Aces didn't do any of that unless a.) they were forced to fight that way in an unforseen situation, or b.) if that mode gave them the greatest advantage.
> 
> Every fighter pilot I have talked to over the last 60 years will tell you - "I want speed and altitude. I want the airplane that gives me the greatest opportunity to enter with high energy and disengage when it is a good idea to 'get out of town'. If you find yourself fooling around in a 'dogfight' of turning and manuevering, the guy you didn't see will kill you - even if it he is a relative low timer."
> 
> Granted, these were aces - but aces that flew 109s, 190s, Spits, 51's, 47's, F4U's and P-38s (and F-86/F4's also). Most of them were cocky enough to say "I'll beat you if I fly yours and you fly mine, but I prefer ________ (fill in the blank). Of the US pilots the dominant choices for those that flew multi fighters (including 4th FG Spitfire pilots and Jugs) the choices most often yielded "P-51/F4U"... and usually narrowed down to "I am faster, am just as manueverable, and know how to pick my fights when the other guy has an advantage that I need to be aware of". To them, that was Their definition of Best Dogfighter.



Ok.SO where in that does the Spitfire XIV fail agains the F4U, P-47 and P-51? It's as fast as them (depending on altitude), flies as high as them, climbs better, turns better and with 2 20mm and 2 0.50s it has as good armament as the P-51 (4 x 0.50 or 6 x 0.50) or the F4U (6 x 0.50s). Maybe the 8 x 0.50s of the P-47 outweighs the Spit's armament.


----------



## GregP (Mar 6, 2012)

Vincnzo, I didn't build it, so I don't know. It is in Russia. I heard it was a Klimov from an internet source, but it is more probably a Mikulin to be proper. Either way, it is't running very well or very often, or for very long when it does run. They do have one flying with an Allison that files regularly.

Wuzak, I have to diagree with you a page back or so. The title at the top of the poll says "Best Dogfighter of WWII" and the most popular plane is the P-47? Duuhhhh ....

Even P-47 fans will rell you it isn't a great dogfighter, so the voters either didn't read the "dogfighter" part or it simply a popularity contest. The real best dogfighter in the world, the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, didn't even get a vote, and it could whip ANY other fighter in WWII in a slow to medium-speed dogfight. I know you don't feel as though anything is missing but I respectfully disagree totaly if we are talking about a dogfighter. 

If we are talking just "best fighter," without the "dogfighter" part, then maybe there really IS nothing missing.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Readie (Mar 7, 2012)

RCAFson said:


> Unfortunately, my choice for best all round fighter would have been the Spitfire Mk VIII, which had a very potent, and IMHO, unrivaled, combination of range, maneuverability, firepower and performance.



Many agree with you.

Mk8 
This was essentially a low altitude, un-pressurised Mk7. Changes to the carburettor allowed negative "g" manoeuvring. Although the Mk8 was intended as the major developmental line for the Spitfire, the Mk9 was hurried into service, as it was easier to convert existing spitfires (mostly MK5s) than the brand new Mk8. All fitted with the "pointed" rudder, and 4 bladed propeller, almost all served overseas. Rated by some as the "Best" spitfire made. With its increased speed (415mph) and almost as sweet, handling as the early spitfires. Armaments the same variations as the Mk5. A VERY effective fighter.

John


----------



## davparlr (Mar 11, 2012)

Ratsel said:


> - jack of all trades, master of none.



Master of none? The P-51 was a superlative long range escort fighter, a superlative high altitude fighter, an excellent long range interdiction fighter, and, a very good low altitude fighter. 



Ratsel said:


> Nobody can deny that P-51 by themselves or B-17 by themselves not much threat against Luftwaffe.



Hard to imagine that an aircraft, available in quantity, that could fly 600 miles, out fly prevalent enemy aircraft over their own airfields from ceiling to SL during the most critical period of the war, strafe transportation vehicles on the way out and fly 600 miles back home, could be considered not much of a threat to the Luftwaffe.

As for the best dogfighter, for yanking and banking, I would guess the Spit XIV, however the Bf-109K is pretty impressive in speed and climb from SL to 30k+. I don’t about the turning part. The F4U-4 was certainly a good performer but I don’t think it played enough of a role in WW2. 

As for the best fighter, well, with carrier capability required, the only answer is the superb F4U. With the carrier capability removed, in my opinion, the P-51 was the best fighter for the following reasons:
1)	It was the most advance aerodynamically efficient piston aircraft of WW2, with only the equally impressive, but later and much fewer, Fw-190D-9 coming close. The P-51A, with 1150 hp was capable of 342 mph, with racks, at SL, with 1170 hp, the Bf-109F was capable of 326 mph (no racks?), and, with much more hp the Spitfire V was capable of 324 mph (no racks?). All models of the P-51 were very fast.
2)	Due to its aerodynamic efficiency and plentiful internal fuel load, it had great range, able to support long range bombing raids and interdiction or extended on-station time.
3)	As stated above, it had great combat capability from high altitude to SL. Its airspeed was faster at all altitudes than any prevalent enemy aircraft and at fighter weight; it could also climb and turn with good authority at all altitudes, commandingly so at high altitudes. And, it had great dive speed. Not until late in the war was their an enemy aircraft capable of such a broad range of excellent performance, and allied aircraft that had this, e.g., Spitfire XIV, did not have the range or endurance. 
4)	It was a good flying aircraft with few flying vices.
5)	It was designed for manufacturing efficiency without compromising performance. Units were cheap and could be produced in great quantity. This allowed overpowering forces to be available when the enemy did develop a counter.
6)	It had significant impact on the war in Europe for an extended time.


----------



## GregP (Mar 14, 2012)

The best fighter in WWII was always the one coming out of the sun, cloud, or neutral background against an enemy not looking at you. But that was before radar.

After radar ... I mean the radar with altutude reporting capability, the best figher was the one who arrived to the immense surprise of the other guy. Very much like the statement above, huh?

After that radar, the best figher was the one employed the best by the flight commander. He could be on either side, but the best situational awareness usually wins.

Today it might be the unmanned robot who wins ... maybe not. If so, kill the terminator now and be done with it.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 27, 2012)

It's really impossible to identify "a best" without specifing its roles and when it was operational. That said, I'd go with the P-51D. The Mustang had no real flaws, excelled in many areas, and was probably more versatile overall than the other types mentioned. The F4U is a high honorable mention.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Mar 27, 2012)

It's expected, but sad nevertheless, to see that the Tempest V is missing from that list, especially since Hans-Werner Lerche, who spent his war service testing captured Allied aircraft, rated it above all of the others, and reckoned that only DB605-powered Axis aircraft had a hope against it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 27, 2012)

That's interesting - was he specifying a DB-605 subtype, or maybe a Bf-109 subtype?


----------



## windswords (Apr 7, 2012)

To me "dogfightng" at least _classic_ dogfighting is irrelevant. Most American fighters did not dogfight. They were energy fighters who used hit and run tactics more than traditional dogfighting. The Axis did this too but maybe to a lesser extent. Now the question was framed as best "all around" fighter. Not dogfighter. Of course if you talk dogfighter than you have the usual suspects - Spitfire, Mustang, FW-190, and Zero - maybe a few others. But let's consider the all-round best fighter.

OK. What tasks did a WWII fighter do and what attributes did it have???

1) dogfight
2) escort bombers
3) ground attack (fighter bomber)
4) interceptor (here not only is rate of climb is important but how fast can it get its motor started, warmed up and in the air).
5) bomber destroyer - this goes with interceptor but here I'm focussing on the firepower aspect to bring down heavy bombers (Libs, Lancs, Forts, Super Forts, HE-111's, H8K's etc)
6) Survivability - can it take a beating as well as dish it out? Can it protect its its pilot and get him home in less than pristine condition?
7) Impact - a (subjective I'll admit) measure of its overall effectiveness in the theater and partially supported by the numbers produced (for example the ME-262 is a fantastic plane but they made very few of them so the impact is not there)

If you can think of some others please chime in!

So knowing the above you have to choose a plane that had speed, maneuverability, range, firepower, climb, ruggedness, mass numbers and so forth.

May I have the envelope please?

IMHO the winner is: 




The P-47 Thunderbolt

Best dogfighter - no, but it had great speed, not a bad climb rate (especially after the paddle blade props were used), and although it wasn't a turner it was great in a roll (I didn't say the best roller but right up there).
Best bomber escort - no, but not bad here either. And range was not a problem with drop tanks (P-47's could go all the way to Berlin by the end of the war). The N model was more than adequate in the Pacific when it came to range. High altitude performance was one of its better qualities. 
Best ground attack - very well could be. You could argue about the Corsair but you have to rate the T-bolt at or near the top in this regard.
Best interceptor - Hard to say just where it would fall because it did not serve in that capacity but it should be noted it was originally designed for this role, so it would have at least been competitive.
Best bomber destroyer - The FW-190 certainly comes to mind but since the T-bolt was designed as a high altitude interceptor and it had 8 .50's - well I think it would have been more than adequate.
Best Survivability - Again at or near the top in this regard (as is the Corsair)
Best impact - It was made in more numbers than any other American fighter (15,000). That's a far cry from the Spit and ME-109 but it's a hell of lot planes in it's own right. And it made a significant contribution in Western Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Pacific. Some were sold to the Russians but I don't know enough of how well it performed for them.


So there you have it. The P-47 wasn't the best _________ fighter (fill in your favorite single attribute here), but I believe, it was the best _all-around_ fighter of WW-II.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2012)

Naturally windswords, there are those who will disagree with you; I am one of them. My real problem is I like almost all the fighters of WWII for some reason or another. All had at least SOME great cahracteristic or they would not have been built to fight the war.

The Spitfire, P-38, Me-109, and A6M Zero were around for the entire war. The rest were pretty much not around for the entire war, but werre developed when existing planes showed inadequacies ... so at least some of the later-war planes almost HAVE to be better than what they replaced.

The best kill ratio goes to the Hellcat, hands down, but my favorite is the P-51 for its ability to do many things well and almost all very well.

But as I said earlier, I love 'em all. If called upon to choose ONE to be in when on a mission, my choice would change depending on the mission.

Cheers!


----------



## Watanbe (Apr 8, 2012)

Any reason the Tempest doesn't rate much in these discussions/doesn't even make the poll. Is it because it came too late? Or were there issues that I have missed? It seems to be a ripper performer.


----------



## cimmex (Apr 8, 2012)

Watanbe said:


> Any reason the Tempest doesn't rate much in these discussions/doesn't even make the poll. Is it because it came too late? Or were there issues that I have missed? It seems to be a ripper performer.



IMO the importance of a special aircraft you can see how long it served after the war.
cimmex


----------



## windswords (Apr 8, 2012)

GregP,

You are right. It ultimately would depend on the mission. I don't know if I want to take a T-Bolt to swirling dogfight, although it could roll with the best of them and if someone got a shot off on me my plane wouldn't immediately blow apart, but if I was going to strafe an enemy field and take on some bandits that rose to oppose me, that would be my ride.
Kill ratios are important but it depends on who your opponent is, and Vals, Kates, Judy's, and Jill's were not the best opponents for the Grumman. And that is not to dis the Hellcat (or Corsair) by any means.

Watanbe,

Maybe it just isn't as well known. The Spitfire was around for the whole war and they made a boatload of them. Certainly on paper the Tempest looks great.

cimmex, 

I would caution you that postwar availability of a particular aircraft has a lot more to do with its cost to an airforce than its abilities. Both the P-38 and P-47 were quickly phased out of service because they cost too much to keep in a postwar budget era. I don't know about other nations planes like the Tempest.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 11, 2012)

Like this, and I will place another possible contender into your criteria: the P-38 Lightning.

*1) dogfight ** It could hold its own, perhaps not the greatest. Late J and L models much better
2) escort bombers  It could fly anywhere the Mustang could, sooner. But not as economically
3) ground attack (fighter bomber) The record shows it was great here. Equal to the Thunderbolt
4) interceptor   What it was actually designed for, and if used as such would have been great, fast climb, lethal firepower.
5) bomber destroyer - as stated above
6) Survivability - just as rugged perhaps as the Thunderbolt, but with another engine to limp home on.
7) Impact - * *Was there from the start to the end of the war for the USA. And besides performing in all of the above, it was one of the most important photo recon aircraft the U.S. had.*


----------



## wuzak (Apr 11, 2012)

MikeGazdik said:


> Like this, and I will place another possible contender into your criteria: the P-38 Lightning.
> 
> *1) dogfight ** It could hold its own, perhaps not the greatest.  Late J and L models much better
> 2) escort bombers  It could fly anywhere the Mustang could, sooner. But not as economically
> ...



Just like to point out that the poll question refers only to (1) - roles 2, 3, 4 5 are not mentioned. Items 6 7 are independent of role.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Just like to point out that the poll question refers only to (1) - roles 2, 3, 4 5 are not mentioned. Items 6 7 are independent of role.



This thread has been confused about "Best all around" or "Best dogfighter", since day one. The poll results speak to most people voting in an attempt to name the "Best all around" fighter.

Love the Thunderbolt, but it is not the "Best Dogfighter" of WWII. Its been so long ago, but I believe that when I first chimed in I was going under the "Dogfighter" premise, and went with the Messerschmitt.

The list I used, I copied from the fella that created it before my post. (windswords)


----------



## CORSNING (May 26, 2012)

Sticking with the "Best Dogfighter" I'd go with the Yak-3 down low in the horizontal plane. An air superiority fighter has to go vertically also. And though the Yak was no slouch the P-63 was better. At higher speeds the Kingcobra could outroll, outturn or turn with and outclimb (except for the Spit at certain heights) anything listed on this poll. 4x05.in. + 1x37mm armament. The 37mm wasn't the best for dogfighting, but one hit against any fighter and it would be over.

The following information is from Francis Dean's AHT ( Mike Willams' wwiiaircraftperformance.org):

Maneuverability: Exceptionally easy to perform at all altitudes at which the aircraft would normally
operate and a new pilot would quickly feel at ease doing them. The aircraft responds rapidly to ailerons at all speeds.

Turning ability: About the same as the P-38J using maneuvering flaps. The P-63 could get on the P-51B's tail in 3 to 4 turns and P-63 performance became relatively better with increasing turning speed.
With flaps down part way it was superior to most anything else in the air. Changes in tail surfases and elevator control system improved longitudinal and directional characteristics of later P-63 models to the point they were considered very nice aircraft to fly.

Roll rate: Action was rapid with light but positive forces. No effort and would roll exactly on its longitudinal axis. Maximum was 110degrees/sec. at 275mph. ( It could out roll the Fw-190A at speeds over 325 mph. It could outroll a normal winged spitfire over 225 mph and any fighter in U.S. inventory.)

Range: This was the P-63 major draw back. Internal fuel places in the wings only seriously limited the P-63's distance capability after combat at midpoint in radius missions.

Climb: All over 4,000 fpm. dry. Initial for P-63A-10= 4,980 fpm. Initial for P-63D/E= 4,970 fpm. (calculated).


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2012)

In this poll the A6M gets few votes. This is understandable because of the later model and more advanced planes it is up against. I would argue though that in 1941 the A6M might have been the best fighter in the world and was almost certainly was the best shipboard fighter in the world at that time. The A6M was not available in any numbers during the BOB but if it had been available to the LW in numbers the RAF would have had a more difficult time. The A6M outranged anything on either side.

However, having just reread "Shattered Sword" one of the glaring weaknesses of the A6M was it's armament. The two 20 MMs they carried at Midway were fairly potent but they were short ranged, had a rainbow trajectory and only carried 60 rounds per gun. The two cowl mounted 7.7s were well supplied with ammo but were not very lethal aginst the US A/C. The A6Ms at Midway had to continually go back to the carrier to rearm which cancelled out some of the advantage of it's long legs. Later the A6M had it's 20MM ammo capacity increased to 90 rounds per gun and the cowl mounted guns were changed to 12.7s.

I wonder if the A6M would have been a more lethal fighter if it initially had not been armed with two cowl mounted 12.7s alone ( like the Oscar had) or with two additional 12.7s in the wings in place of the 20MMs. With more ammo per gun ( at least in the wings) and with much more lethal MGs, the Zero might have been a more successful fighter and the Allies would have suffered more ( not a good thing).


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2012)

A good combination for the Zero would have been to leave the cowl guns alone and put an army 12.7 in each wing. And that is the problem. The Japanese army and navy couldn't standardize on _anything._ 

The initial 20mm used in the wings was very light and weighed less than an American .50 or a Japanese Navy 13.2mm MG (clone of American .50 using 13.2mm Hotchkiss ammo). Later Zeros had improved 20mm guns that were heavier but fired higher velocity ammo. 

Japanese army had problems with the 12.7mm guns (or the ammo) and many Oscars had one of each. The 12.7mm, like many big Brownings, didn't take to synchronization well. They took a bigger than usual cut in rate of fire when synchronized. They also had a problem with the ammo. The explosive filler was a _little too sensitive_ and they had premature detonations either in the barrel or just in front of the muzzle leading the Japanese army to fit armor troughs under the barrels/gun muzzles to protect the engine.


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2012)

SR, hoping you would weigh in. Many thanks. As you say, the IJN and the Army could not agree on much but the two 12.7s in the wings rather than the 20 MMs if the 12.7s had an adequate supply of ammo sounds good. The Oscar served well throughout the war with two cowl mounted 12.7s which is somewhat incongruous considering the Allied AC they had to go against late in the war. Spitfires, P47s, P51s, Beaufighters were all more heavily armed but the Oscar soldiered on against them. A hard fact to keep in mind for us arm chair pilots is that an early WW2 fighter had only one purpose and that was to tote some guns somewhere and damage the enemy with them. If the guns were inadequate or if they did not work well or were out of ammo, the fighter was almost useless.


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2012)

I would not pick the P-63 as the allround best fighter but it was an excellent dogfighter. Just for fun I tried to rate it on Mike's seven points. I didn't expect it to do well in very many areas, but I was a little suprise when I finished.

DOGFIGHTER: Very close to "par excellence" (especially at low and medium altitudes) without the flimsy structure of the ZERO. 10pts.

GROUND ATTACK: 4 x 0.5in. 1 x 37mm. Offensively, one of the best. 8pts.

ESCORT BOMBERS: Maximum range 2,000-2,500 mls., but limited internal fuel. Not as desirable as the P-38L, P-47N or P-51B/D in this area, but could do the job if it had to. 8pts.

INTERCEPTOR: 4,600- almost 5,000 fpm. at sea level. The P-63A-8 could reach 10 km. in 11.55 (per AHT). Enough Said. 10pts.

BOMBER DESTROYER: See above and add a 37mm cannon. 10pts.

SURVIVABILITY - Not the flying tank like a F6F, P-47, or F4U, but it had 1,500 lbs. of Allison armor behind the cockpit protecting the pilot. Would have to realy partially on maneuverability. 8pts.

IMPACT: Not much. The USAAF never gave it the chance to prove itself. To be fair, they already had the P-38L, P-47M/N and P-51B/C with the P-51H and P-80A on the way. They just didn't need the P-63. 1pt. (ask the VVS).

Total: 55pts. or 78%


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2012)

The P63 carried 126-128 gallons of internal fuel. It must have gotten really good gas mileage or monster drop tanks to have a range of 2000- 2500 miles. It is my understanding that the 37 MM cannon never worked very well operationally. The podded 50 cals were not liked by the Army.


----------



## CORSNING (May 30, 2012)

renrich,
I'll look up more info tomorrow, but you're right about the podded guns. As far as the 37mm goes, it was much improved on the P-63 with more rounds. BUT imagine some of them in VVS use without the wing guns (and they were). Any performance figures I have posted to date were A/C with the wing pods intact. Without them (as the Russian pilots so love to fly them) probably produce climb rates over 5,000 fpm and speed in the 450 range. Its just an opinion though. Two fifties and a straighter shooting 37mm cannon could rake [email protected] on even a P-47, BIG TIME. Internal fuel (most) 126 gallons, clean design and laminar flow wings= almost 700 mls. internal fuel only. How it did it, I leave to the engineers. But the fact, the Russians did not care. It was as good, and in many ways better than anything they had in 1944, Period.

Please pardon me, Ive been DJing and drinking. So, I owe you all an apology. I'm sorry. Especially to you renrich. I didn't even say hi. Hope your having as good night as I did. Gotta go now. The wife fell asleep on the day bed and I have to get the dogs in and take her to bed.........eat your hearts out.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jun 2, 2012)

CORSNING, check this video out I posted in the video section, with you obvious love of the P-63 you will really like it. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation-videos/great-1st-person-p-63-kingcobra-video-31444.html

I like most of what you point out with the Kingcobra, however I really cannot come to defense of the 37mm cannon. Slow rate of fire and a "lobbing" trajectory. Not good for air to air combat. Replace that gun with a 20mm as in the P-400. YUM!

Notice the great visibility forward, and forward down! And how loud!!!


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 2, 2012)

Mike,
Thanks man, that was awesome. I checked out the aerobatic flight. It completed a loop in 27 seconds and I'll bet $5 that wasn't at W.E.P. I have to take that bet back. My wife, Diana just took my last $5 to take my step son to a card shop. I totally agree with you on the 37mm thing. But still, just one hit and it was over. Bet the German bomber pilots had a lot to complain about. Bell could have done better. A Russian B-20 would have been nice. Great visibility on the take off and landing. Where did they come up with that hooked prop? I wouldn't say say that I have a love for the P-63 so much. It's more a love for finding out the facts and I have been reading a lot about the Kingcobra lately and some of it is pretty impressing. Leaves me wondering, with equally skilled pilots just how well could it have done against a Spitfire XIV or 21 in a close-in dogfight.......makes you wonder, doesn't it. Thanks again buddy, you're a cool dude with a lot of great ideas. Looking forward to seeing what you and others have to say about the "best" in this thread.
God bless you guys. Thanks, Jeff


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 2, 2012)

Soviets did not have many good words re. P-63A in 1944 - their main concern was that the plane was structurally weak. So Bell undertook steps to reinforce the planes delivered. Per AHT.
As the LR fighter, P-63 was severely lacking in range, once the drop tanks are off. With circa 50% of the internal fuel of P-51 (with hull tanks, as issued in 1944), the realistic range is comparable with European fighters, but falls woefully short vs. US Japanese designs. The ammo count needed for the sustained operation over enemy territory was also pitiful - 200 rounds per HMG, while the 37mm cannon was offering different ballistics vs. HMGs (= okay for short range fire, problematic for long range shooting).


----------



## renrich (Jun 2, 2012)

The P63 also had poor high altiude performance. Had many of the same weaknesses as the P39.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 2, 2012)

Had a few, agreed.
Until October 1944 it is true there was a weakness in the rear fuselage. The high altitude performance greatly improved with the V-1710-109 in the E model. Just curious, what plane would you take to dogfight against it at 20,000 ft in a high speed battle? And just for the record, cost aside, I believe the F4U and P-38 were the U.S.'s finest achievements.


----------



## renrich (Jun 2, 2012)

At the 1944 Fighter Conference, the P63 was held by most pilots in low esteem. If the P63 had been available in 1941 like the P39 was it would have been a good fighter except range limited. When the P63 was available though it's lack of range made it not very useful when compared to the premier fighters. It has to be able to get into the fight to be useful. It was just too small and incidently it's cockpit was very small for a good sized pilot.


----------



## [SC] Arachnicus (Jun 3, 2012)

The F6F wasn't in here? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't that plane produced more aces then any other plane ever?


----------



## treyzx10r (Jun 3, 2012)

Yes the F6F was an ace maker for sure ,but it came in at a time when the cream of the Japanese pilot crop was being rapidly depleted. Not to take away fom the bravery of the pilots or the performance of the airframe but all of this is purely subjective. I'll throw my vote at the Dora in all the 'what ifs' it had to me the best all around potential.


----------



## [SC] Arachnicus (Jun 3, 2012)

We can make this easy and just say anything with the R-2800 Double Wasp engine.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 3, 2012)

I agree with {SC}, the R-2800 was the best. Haven't done the research on aces, so I can't comment on trey's statement. But the F6F came at a time when it was most needed. It was a very well thought out A/C, but by late 1944 its performance was beginning to lag behind the first line fighters in many respects. 
treyzx10r, we are discussing a dogfighter. At 20,000 ft. in a high speed (325-425 mph) dogfight. I believe the Kingcobra would have no trouble outrolling, outturning or outclimbing the Dora in this arena. 
renrich is absolutely right about the range of the P-63. Once the external fuel was dropped it was time to head back home (in the ETO). BUT, that was a U.S. need not a Russian need. For the type of war the Russians had to fight the P-63 was near perfect.


----------



## cimmex (Jun 3, 2012)

I don’t know what this worth but Pierre Gostermann rated the Focke Wulf 190D-9 as the very best plane at 20000, even better than all the Allied had at the ETO. Only the Tempest had a similar performance. At least this statement is in his book.
cimmex


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 3, 2012)

cimmex, I can't say that I totally agree with Gostermann because I don't know all his research. But remember, the P-63 wasn't in the ETO and I do not know if he was familiar with its capabilities. Just food for thought. Now don't make me look up their internal range. Remember, you can't compare the performance of long range fighters to interceptor/air superiority fighters. If you are going to try, deck the long range fighters in interceptor mode (lighten the weight because long range isn't an issue). If the long range fighter can even come close, its done its job.


----------



## Juha (Jun 3, 2012)

Even IMHO Fw 190D-9 was a very good fighter I'd take Clostermann's writings with fairly large grain of salt.

Juha


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 3, 2012)

I agree Juha, the Fw-190D was somewhat of a stop-gap fighter that turn out like the Merlin Mustang, awesome. It was an excellent fighter. While it was in some ways even better than the P-51 or P-47 performance wise the topic of this thread is "Best Dogfighter. And once again, the p-63 is not my first choice if I had to fly into combat but it is still probably the best all round dogfighter. Of course that is just my opinion (at this time).

Just a foot note: The maximum speed of the D-9 at 20,000 ft. was 426 mph. The P-63A averaged about 422. The speed of the D-9 when it was pushed to 2.02 ata was 433. That would have been at the end so it would have to be compared to the P-63C. Its speed at that altitude was about 434. So, speed was close and not a determining factor.


----------



## cimmex (Jun 4, 2012)

Hi CORSNING, 
I never found higher speed numbers than 410 mph for the P-63C. Do you have any source? The comparable large wingspan does not indicate a good rollrate, is there a special reason for?
cimmex


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 4, 2012)

Hi cimmex,
I'm not an aeronautical engineer. I do not know the structual reasons why the P-63could roll at 110 degrees a second. If I ever get a chance, I'll look into it deeper.
At WWII Aircraft Performance there is a graph showing the speed of an early P-63A without water injection as 347 mph/S.L. and 415 mph/7km. There is also a graph for a later A-10 with water injection at 383 mph/S.L. and 423 mph/5km. The A-10 figure might be calculated, however the date on the graph was right around the time the A-10 was being tested.
There is also a calculated graph for the C-1 showing 381 mph/S.L. and 434 mph/6 km.
In Dean's AHT there is a graph showing manufacturer's testing of an A-8 showing 378 mph/S.L. and 424 mph/5 km.
Just a note: P-38L wingspan= 52 ft./95 deg./sec.
F4U-4= 41 ft./108 deg. sec.
P-63A= 38 ft. 4 in./110 deg./sec.


----------



## cimmex (Jun 4, 2012)

Hi CORSNING, 
thank you for the link. I know this site of course but seldom visit it because of its not so well reputation. I really wonder why hardly one website follows the data numbers of this site. I may be wrong but this is my observation. 
It seems to be that the P-63C had the best roll rate of all American WWII fighter planes.
BTW the Fw190A and D had 180°/ s at 260 mph.
cimmex


----------



## renrich (Jun 4, 2012)

According to the chief test pilot of the Corsair, Boone Guyton, the F4U1 at high speeds could achieve a " more than 180 degree roll in a second."


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 4, 2012)

Hi cimmex,
The graph I have shows the 190A max. roll at 165 degrees/255 mph. with the P-63A-1 equalling it at 101 degrees at 344 mph. and superior over those speeds. Where did you get the 180 degree info and what info shows the C-1 as the fastest rolling?
Hi renrich,
In what book does Guyton state the over 180 degrees a second for the F4U-1 in?


----------



## cimmex (Jun 4, 2012)

Hi CORSNING, 
Found this graph at the UBI forum.
ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting
cimmex


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 4, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Hi CORSNING,
> I never found higher speed numbers than 410 mph for the P-63C. Do you have any source? The comparable large wingspan does not indicate a good rollrate, is there a special reason for?
> cimmex



Hello, cimmex, if I may:

The P-63C have had a substantially different engine, than the P-63A. Changes on the engine (relocation of the carburetor, now being between the superchargers) added some 2500 ft to the full throttle height, so the P-63C was able to max out it's speed on the thinner air -> greater speed. With WEP rating (plus water injection, or 'wet'), the increase was beginning to be felt at some 13-14000 ft and above. 
Please note here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/p-63chart-1400.jpg) that ram effect is far better harvested with the engines that were equipped with carb located between the supercharger stages (4000 ft gain for the engine power vs. altitude, in airplane flying at high speed, or roughly comparable with P-51 with Merlin), than with the 'old' engine, carb located prior the aux stage (1700 ft gain for the FTH).
The P-63E was equipped with again improved engine (able to make 3200 rpm, also the aux stage being run at more rpm - adding further 2500-3000 ft to the FTH, still no intercooler, but using water injection), able to make almost 450 mph at 30000 ft. One problem, though - too late for ww2.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 4, 2012)

Hi cimmex and tomo pauk,
Thanks cimmex, that's the graph I took the 190's roll rate from, and you can see I was being a slight bit generous at 165 degrees. Thanks for info tomo. If you look at the date on the graph, 5 June 1944, you'll notice that it was a little early for the C-1 and D. It's quite possible those two were calculated. But that's still one of the best graphs I've seen for P-63 info.


----------



## cimmex (Jun 5, 2012)

Sorry CORSNING, 
my fault, misread the graph (bad eyes) I think 165° is right.
cimmex


----------



## renrich (Jun 5, 2012)

"Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton, The Test Pilot's Story of the F4U Corsair. This is the whole history of Guyton's involvment with the Corsair from his crashing the XF4U to after the war and his forced landing in the Pirate. Guyton used many, many test flights perfecting the ailerons of the F4U1. Vought believed that the ailerons in the Corsair were some of the best in the world. Guyton had to take sea sick pills because he spent so much time rolling the Corsair. It opens one's eyes about testing an airplane that was on the cutting edge of performance with a new, still in development engine and prop.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 5, 2012)

Hi there cimmex,
You have nothing to be sorry for. I am all the time misreading graphs and constantly correcting information. That's all part of contantly updating research.

Hi there renrich,
Thanks for the information on Guyton's "Whistling Death". I have been thinking about purchasing this book for a long time. I just keep finding other books that keep robbing my book fund first.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 5, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Hi CORSNING,
> thank you for the link. I know this site of course but seldom visit it because of its not so well reputation. I really wonder why hardly one website follows the data numbers of this site. I may be wrong but this is my observation.
> It seems to be that the P-63C had the best roll rate of all American WWII fighter planes.
> BTW the Fw190A and D had 180°/ s at 260 mph.
> cimmex




Thanks for bringing this up cimmex.
I have read a few post on this sight refering to Mike's sight as biased. Well, I have just a little to say about that. I believe Mike has spent a lot of time puting this sight together. I have read pilot reports on there were they stated their opinions. That's only to be expected. I have read articles there that are very interesting but don't include every single angle of every aircraft included in the article. And my answer to that is, Yea, so? I do not find the wwiiaircraftperformance sight biased in any way. Mike is simply printing excellent information that is from U.S. military and British military points of view, PERIOD. Mike is just posting the facts. Its up to us to get the most out of those facts by reading carefully and using our brains (sometimes that is to hard for me too). 

Mike Willams has put together the best sight on military aircraft test reports I have ever seen. He has a variety of different aircraft information. In my opinion he should be commended for his efforts.

The only mild problem I have with his sight is theres not any VVS aircraft information. It wouldn't suprise me if he was working on it though.


----------



## renrich (Jun 5, 2012)

corsning, know what you mean as I am always seeing books I "need" to have but my book budget is already sprained and I have books packed in the garage I can hardly get to. I have owned Guyton's book for a long time, being a Corsair lover. I assume his info in the book is from his logbook and it shows how individual AC can have different performance figures because there are a lot of variables which effect the numbers. His rolling work was in an F4U1 and the results were transferred into the production AC. I would expect that the production F4U4 would have better rolling performance than the earlier models because it had more power and was cleaner. Speaking of rolling I flew an L39 through two rolls, one left and one right. It takes slightly over one second to roll 360 degrees at 250 knots. I think the Corsair numbers were at around 350 MPH.

The Corsair control forces were very light and were consistent through all three control axis.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 5, 2012)

Hey there renrich,
Hummmmm, let me think....................Albatros, 288 mph, complete roll in just over a second............SWEET renrich. Nuts, Cedar Point in Sandusky, OH is kindergarden naptime compared to that.............sweet man, just sweet. Uh, how did you manage to get at the helm of that little Aero racer?

Hi you all,
This here part is for everybody, just so you knows. If I had to go into combat in early 1945 without knowing the condition of combat that I might wind up in, the F4U-4 would be my absolute first choice. Very rugged, maneuverable, fast, great climber and very adaptable. Yep, the Corsair. Against the P-63, if the Corsair driver kept himself from being drawn into a close in dogfight and kept his speed up, he would have an excellent chance. Uh, but don't slow your maneuvers down to the place where the other guy could get a bead on you with that 37mm.


----------



## renrich (Jun 5, 2012)

A hit from a 37MM would be troublesome but one negative on the 37 for ACM is it's slow rate of fire and small ammo capacity not to mention change in CG when the ammo is shot away. To me, what makes the F4U such an admirable design was the fact that as the design evolved and the performance got better the airplane became a sweeter flying bird, by all accounts. In many other cases as the fighter gained more performance the airplane became a more demanding bird to fly. I have read the nicest flying P51 was the Allison powered one. The later model P47s had lateral stability issues. The late model BF109s were very challenging to fly and the Spit 9 was allegedly the nicest one to fly.

The very first F4U1s were a bit of a mess although potent Zero killers when well flown. They had very poor visibility, the bouncing landing gear, a disconcerting tail waggle when the flaps blanked out the rudder, the nasty left wing drop in a stall. All first models had some issues but the Corsair had more than it's share. But the Corsair showed how advanced and solid the design was when it evolved into one of the best all around(maybe the very best) fighter bombers in WW2 and yet the airplane became a real pleasure to fly for a pilot with adequate experience. I have a book written by a Navy pilot who flew the Hellcat, Corsair and Bearcat as well as many jets. He said of the three prop planes the Corsair was the easiest to become a good gunner in and in many ways was a superior flying machine to the others.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 6, 2012)

I agree with everything you just said renrich, but that doesn't explain the L39. What, were you on a covert operation and can't talk about?


----------



## renrich (Jun 6, 2012)

I paid $375 for a 30-40 minute ride in one. Flew out of an FBO at Llano, Texas. I was in the rear seat and since I have about 10 hours solo in a 172 many years ago, he let me handle the airplane while in the air. Did a few turns, flew through a cloud and rolled it twice. Besides the 172 I have handled a number of single engined private AC in the air including a Stearman. That L39 was by far the easiest to maneuver. For what I did it is feet on the floor. The pilot took us through a lot of aerobatics and we pulled a lot of Gs. Fortunately I don't get air sick or sea sick. Almost the most fun I ever had with my clothes on.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 6, 2012)

Cool! And thanks man.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 6, 2012)

Something just struck me now. The first 4 contestants are specified (Spit XVIe, Fw 190D, P51D, P38L) while the other 5 are not (A6m, Yak3, Bf109, F4U, P47). That can't be fair.
Furthermore are we having a poll of the best dogfighter of WOII, or is this about the best dogfighter in service, say may 8th 1945? The fighters at the end of the conflict are always going to be faster than those at the beginning.

Just my 2 cents.

Chrzzzz


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 7, 2012)

rank,
I'm not quit sure on what your exact question is. But still, I kind of get the jist of it. If I am understanding the original thought of this thread, I think it goes like this: The contestant had to be in ACTIVE service before the end of WW2 otherwise the F8F would have been mentioned a long time ago and we could all go home. In a way you are kind of right about the A6M, although at 110 mph I'm sure it would outturn any of the others listed. But in kind, the Ki.43 would have outturned it and the Ki.27 would have outturned both. But there is more to being the best dogfighter than turning circle radius. Dogfighting is three dimensional. Its getting from one place to the other before the other guy. Speed in a dogfight is vital, but not maximum speed in straight flight that an aircraft is capable of. While maximum speed is great for getting into or out of trouble it has very little to do with staying in the fight and duking it out. Just one more thing at the beginning of the life of all these aircraft, the A6M was probably the most specified of the bunch. This is all just an opinion though.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 7, 2012)

Hi Corning, It wasn't as much as a question more sort of a remarque. Don't take it as crititisme on your part but it seems to me that we're comparing uncomparible parities. Either Spitfire, BF109 and Zeke or Spitfire LFIXe, BF109G10 and A6m5c


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 7, 2012)

Hi rank,
Didn't take it as criticism. Took it more as a very valid question. Oh, and welcome to the thread. If I understand the thread title correctly it is incorporating all and any operational fighter from the beginning to the end of WW2. That does give the later fighters an advantage in technology. But, the Spitfire IX of 1942 could out dogfight any P-51 flying up to V-J day. So could the Yak-3 of 1944 under 22,000 ft. 

If threads were started with headings "Best dogfighter of 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and so on it would be a pain (at least for me). I could already see the days of research coming. Finding out when this fighter started active service and all that. That would be way too hard for me. I'm lazy at heart but physically always working. I am struggling at this time to put together a side by side comparison of the A6M2 vs. Ki.43-II on another thread.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 7, 2012)

Glad you took it lightly  Lazynes is often underappreciated. All major inventions happend because some guy (who was too damn lazy in the first place) was thinking: this is to hard there must be an easier way

About these polls, maybe we should merrit the planes on their achiefments instead of on performences but to be frank, I haven't got a clue how to do that and besides It would be a lot of work. 

Chrzzzz


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 7, 2012)

About these polls, maybe we should merrit the planes on their achiefments instead of on performences but to be frank, I haven't got a clue how to do that and besides It would be a lot of work. 
Chrzzzz[/QUOTE]

Hey, how you doing rank,
Meriting planes on there achievements sometimes makes there true potential obscure. Achievements of an aircraft brings in all kinds of other factors. Utilization, timing, quality of pilots..etc. In my opinion, when comparing A/C to A/C you have to take the metal machines at face value. Human factor can change the performance of an A/C considerably. Findlands Buffalos for example.

Your right about it being a lot of work to research/study the performance of an aircraft. To do it and do it right, you have to be willing to put a lot of time (love) into what you are doing and not get discouraged when you have found out that you made an error here or there. I have found out that on this sight there are many who are ready and willing to give you their knowledge. You don't have to do it alone.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 8, 2012)

Hi Corning,

Well I think it might be worth pondering about a sort of methodology for this. Nice material for a new thread don't you think?
About the Buffalo, I always thougt is is pretty weird that a plane that is thought of a a pure dog on one side of the planet is considered a marvel on the other side.

Chrzzzz


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 8, 2012)

Hi rank,
Findlands Buffalos were not pure dogs. The were not weighted down like the British and an American's were. They were very agile A/
C.


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 8, 2012)

I know. The Dutch KNIL ML had them too. They didn't do so bad against the Japanese either but both the Brits and the Dutch just aren't in the same league as the Fins with their Buffalo's. Think that is was the most succesfull Finnish fighter of WW2.
I'm going to try and find arguments for that claim.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 9, 2012)

I decided to do a little more digging into the F4U-4 before I posted my overall thoughts. Dean in his book AHT has a quote from Guyton I believe. It goes like this: " Throwing the stick hard (F4U-1) would roll the airplane more than 180 degrees in a second". There is no follow up statement in AHT stating how controlled the snaproll was. Another quote is included by another pilot " Four second aileron rolls at 288 mph IAS ". No altitude is given so there is no way of knowing the true airspeed of the plane. For now I'll stick with the maximum roll as 108 degrees. Another pilot states " I couldn't stay on the tail of an FM-2 ". Now that I could believe.

So for now, my opinion is: While the Ki.27, Ki.43 and A6M could all outturn the Yak-3 at speeds under 225 mph, the Yak had the ability to accelerate rapidly to speeds where it could outmaneuver all of them because of aileron stiffening of the Japanese fighters at medium and high speeds. Therefore the Yak-3 was the most dangerous dogfighter at low and into the medium altitudes. The P-63 took over somewhere in the medium to upper altitudes as long as it kept its speed up. The Spitfires mighty Griffon in the XIV allowed it to take the honors from about 22,000-24,000ft. up. Now remember that's just all an opinion and if I didn't know which I would be facing on take-off I'd still chose the F4U-4.


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2012)

Corsning, throwing the stick hard right or left for that matter is not a snap roll but rather just a plain roll. A snap roll is a different matter but I have to look it up to describe it. A barrel roll is also different. Obviously an airplane has to roll to make a coordinated turn but rolling and sustained turns are two different factors when it comes to ACM. In WW2, in order to hit the defender with guns, the attacker needed to have his wings in the same plane as the defender so a faster rolling airplane could make it difficult for a slower roller. A Zeke could out turn a Corsair all day long but could not roll with one. That is the reason that a Corsair with a Zeke suddenly on his tail would roll and dive. Bob Johnston in a P47 knew he could not outturn a Spitfire in mock ACM but he knew the Spit could not stay with him rolling which was his tactic. If you look at Dean's AHT near the back, at the table about sustained turns you will find that the Corsair was, I think, the worst of all US fighters at sustained turns but when it came to maneuvering the Corsair was quite good. In other words if a fight was going around in circles a Wildcat or Zeke would soon be on the Corsair tail but when it came to overall maneuvering, loops, climbing or diving turns, bunting into a dive, making coordinated turns in a gunnery run, etc. the Corsair was quite good. The faster a Corsair was going the faster it rolled which was not the case with many fighters. The Zeke could hardly roll at all above 250 MPH.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 10, 2012)

Hi there renrich,
I understand and agree with everything you have said above. In the book when Guyton made the statement over 180 deg./sec., was this being measured by test equipment? I believe Guyton believed what he was saying as the truth. Was the bird he was flying off the assembly line or a one off test vehicle?

Any input on my summary opinion? I'm just currious. Am I full-of-it or not...?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 10, 2012)

renrich said:


> The Zeke could hardly roll at all above 250 MPH.



the taic reports with a tested Zeke show that was inferior in roll to US fighter models at high speed, (from 220/250 mph for army planes and 160/200 knts for navy planes) it's not writed Zeke can not roll. that indicated are IAS speed.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 10, 2012)

I messed up message, will try again.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 10, 2012)

renrich,
Snap roll step by step at Extreme How-To Skills - How to Snap Roll a Stunt Plane - Popular Mechanics.
Wild ride. I'm at work and youtube is blocked so I can't bring up a video. Sounds like its time to go find an L39 to me.


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2012)

Anyone with or without any flying experience, if you follow instruction and have the guts can roll a L39. Get the nose up ten degrees, keep your feet on the floor and throw the stick into your thigh. I can't remember the technique for a snap roll but when I read about it, it seemed to be only for very experienced pilots and only with certain airplanes. The airplane that Guyton flew in the roll tests was an early F4U1, instrumented and used many many times to improve roll characteristics. He would go up and roll many times. land and discuss with the engineers. The engineers would modify the ailerons. Up again and roll, roll, roll. That is the reason he had to use sea sick pills. Down and modify . Finally it was judged that the ailerons were perfected and that was the one second 180 degree roll. That aileron design was used on all F4U production models. Dean says in his book that the Corsair had the reputation of havng fine roll qualities but little historical information remains that quantifies that.


----------



## cimmex (Jun 10, 2012)

renrich said:


> Finally it was judged that the ailerons were perfected and that was the one second 180 degree roll. That aileron design was used on all F4U production models. Dean says in his book that the Corsair had the reputation of havng fine roll qualities but little historical information remains that quantifies that.




Must be kept as a big secret because those numbers aren’t stated elsewhere....
cimmex


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 10, 2012)

Guys,
I can't help believe the F4U-1 was modified as a test vehicle that they were able to get a 2+second 360 roll out of. The aileron design then was incorporated on production models equiped for combat. I'm not saying I agree or dissagree that operational Corsairs were able to roll 180/sec. I'm just saying that I have to agree with cimmex that I haven't seen those numbers on an official test document or published elsewhere. At least not to my knowledge (but I am a far cry from mister know-it-all).


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2012)

When Guyton went to the fighter meets he made talks to the other pilots saying " we believe that the ailerons of the Corsair are some of the best in the business." Other pilots who flew the Corsairs operationally talked of how the roll rate was so good. The reason why one does not see the official test documents is that they no longer exist or have been found. That does not mean they did not exist at one time. Certainly something made the Corsair a beautifully maneuvering AC. An AAF pilot at the fighter meet said,'"It is a tough competitor in anything involving maneuvering."


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 10, 2012)

I have read all that in AHT, and agree with it. The F4U had beautiful ailerons. It had to, to be able to throw a 12,000 lbs. aircraft around in the air like they did. I'm just saying the 108 deg./sec. roll is the best "official" number I have seen to date. There is one other document put out by the USN that compares the F4U, F6F and Fw-190 that states the Corsair was equal to the 190 in roll. The document does not list any conditions. Speed, altitude or any other perimeters of condition. The Corsair was a tough competitor from the time of its inception. I have tried very hard not to pick a favorite A/C in order to keep a subject outlook, but overall performance of the F4U-4 makes it very hard.


----------



## [SC] Arachnicus (Jun 12, 2012)

I know the F4U5-N does not count because it was after WW2, but it has to be mentioned just because it was a monster in the skies. I can only imagine how well that Corsair version would of done it it flown during the second world war.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2012)

Hi (SC) Arachnicus,
F4U-5N huh, now that's opening a big can of worms. We would have to include: F8F-1, P-51H, P-72?, P-80A , Vampire, Hornet, all kinds of German stuff, who knows what kind of Japanese stuff and probably some down and dirty stuff from the U.S.S.R. Since it was not a WW2 operational A/C I haven't done much research on that model. From the little that I've read on the -5N I remember it having war emergency power about 2,850 hp. and a top emergency speed of 480 mph. Its maximum climb rate was about 5,280 fpm from what I remember. But it came along late in 1946 I think and that keeps it from playing on this playground. But just the same, it was an awesome bird.


----------



## peter kuppers (Jun 16, 2012)

I've been a member for awhile but haven't posted anything before... I voted for the P-51 mainly because as an all round fighter it had good fire power, range, altitude and maneuverability. If I was picking one for only dogfighting in I would probably pick the Yak-3.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 17, 2012)

Hiya peter,
Low and medium altitude, an excellent choice.


----------

