# The Best Propeller Aircraft of WW2



## Spacefire (Aug 21, 2015)

In your opinion, the best performing aircraft of WW2. Not the most iconic, or your favorite, but the best PERFORMING WW2 prop aircraft.
I define a WW2 aircraft by seeing a decent amount of service. So an aircraft such as the Spitfire Mk. 21, won't be included, despite scoring a submarine kill.


Sorry if any are missing. I'll add them if you ask.

EDIT: Forgot to specify, best propeller FIGHTER aircraft. Sorry.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 21, 2015)

The B29 ended the war, OK that may be said to be down to a bomb others could carry, but as a prop driven aircraft its performance was formidable.

Possibly in terms of effect the DC3 /C 47 had no peer in air transport/parachute deployment.

Not on the list but I go for the old mosquito, it made the theory of fast bomber work, and combined fantastic accuracy when needed with exceptional payload in other circumstances (yes I know not in the same plane) It was all that is required of a night fighter, photo recon, maritime/ long range strike aircraft. No way could it out perform a single engined fighter but it could evade by speed and high speed control even the Me262. Biggest plus it was made of wood just to cheer up Mr Goering and his supply ministry. Last point it looked great and gave rise to the Hornet one of the top performing and beautiful twin prop fighters ever.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2015)

DC-3/ C-47

Space - why only fighters? Testosterone?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DC-3/ C-47
> 
> Space - why only fighters? Testosterone?



I tried to be polite, a fighter only ever enables someone else to do something, or stops them.


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 21, 2015)

pbehn said:


> The B29 ended the war, OK that may be said to be down to a bomb others could carry, but as a prop driven aircraft its performance was formidable.
> 
> Possibly in terms of effect the DC3 /C 47 had no peer in air transport/parachute deployment.
> 
> Not on the list but I go for the old mosquito, it made the theory of fast bomber work, and combined fantastic accuracy when needed with exceptional payload in other circumstances (yes I know not in the same plane) It was all that is required of a night fighter, photo recon, maritime/ long range strike aircraft. No way could it out perform a single engined fighter but it could evade by speed and high speed control even the Me262. Biggest plus it was made of wood just to cheer up Mr Goering and his supply ministry. Last point it looked great and gave rise to the Hornet one of the top performing and beautiful twin prop fighters ever.





FLYBOYJ said:


> DC-3/ C-47
> 
> Space - why only fighters? Testosterone?





pbehn said:


> I tried to be polite, a fighter only ever enables someone else to do something, or stops them.




Oh sorry guys. I knew I was missing something. I meant the best prop fighter. Again, sorry. I don't think there's much dispute over the best bombers of transport aircraft.

Sorry again.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 21, 2015)

Spacefire said:


> Oh sorry guys. I knew I was missing something. I meant the best prop fighter. Again, sorry. I don't think there's much dispute over the best bombers of transport aircraft.
> 
> Sorry again.



There is a lot of dispute about bombers and many threads to prove it.

Fighter, being British I use British parameters..... The spitfire....there at the start and there at the finish, at times out performed by others but was at the end, the same as the start, a point defence interceptor to be feared, at wars end Tempest squadrons switched to Spitfires.

A grudging nod to the Bf109 which had a similar record on the other side.


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 21, 2015)

pbehn said:


> There is a lot of dispute about bombers and many threads to prove it.
> 
> Fighter, being British I use British parameters..... The spitfire....there at the start and there at the finish, at times out performed by others but was at the end, the same as the start, a point defence interceptor to be feared, at wars end Tempest squadrons switched to Spitfires.
> 
> A grudging nod to the Bf109 which had a similar record on the other side.



Alright maybe there is. Sorry. But fighters this thread is.

Can you add your vote to the poll?

Thanks.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 21, 2015)

Not that I hold much in the way of aircraft credentials but:

*The Do 335 Pfeil* - Too late and too few to make any difference but 765 km/Hr(474mph) at 11,400m(37,400ft) armed with a 30mm MK103 cannon and two (2) 20mm autocannons

Only one Do 335 survives today. It was captured by Allied forces at the plant on 22 April 1945. The aircraft was test flown from a grass runway at Oberwiesenfeld, near Munich, to Cherbourg, France while escorted by two P-51s. The Do 335 was easily able to out distance the escorting Mustangs and arrived at Cherbourg 45 minutes before the P-51s.


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 21, 2015)

mikewint said:


> Not that I hold much in the way of aircraft credentials but:
> 
> *The Do 335 Pfeil* - Too late and too few to make any difference but 765 km/Hr(474mph) at 11,400m(37,400ft) armed with a 30mm MK103 cannon and two (2) 20mm autocannons
> 
> Only one Do 335 survives today. It was captured by Allied forces at the plant on 22 April 1945. The aircraft was test flown from a grass runway at Oberwiesenfeld, near Munich, to Cherbourg, France while escorted by two P-51s. The Do 335 was easily able to out distance the escorting Mustangs and arrived at Cherbourg 45 minutes before the P-51s.



An interesting plane, yes. I would add it but unfortunately (or fortunately) it didn't see service, so a no go for the poll. Speaking of which, still only one vote.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2015)

Space, I know you're new and I'm not trying to give you a hard time but have you browsed this site and read some of the threads that have polls such as this?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 21, 2015)

This has a propeller!

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Space, I know you're new and I'm not trying to give you a hard time but have you browsed this site and read some of the threads that have polls such as this?



I've done Google searches but didn't find anything.

Sorry if there already are threads like this. Feel free to lock this thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DC-3/ C-47
> 
> Space - why only fighters? Testosterone?



This, I gotta go with the goonie bird. For Christ's sakes it is still commercially used today.

Best piston engined aircraft ever built. That is ever built, regardless of type of aircraft

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 22, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This, I gotta go with the goonie bird. Gor Christ's sakes it is still commercially used today.
> 
> Best piston engined aircraft ever built.



Agreed. But again, should have specified fighter. Though, I know what you'd say anyways.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2015)

Now if we want to discuss fighters (which we have done a dozen times on the forum), how can you argue against the P-51D. Sure I think it was overrated simply because people always overlook other aircraft (Spit, 109, 190, LA...) and just get all smitten over the 51. Fact remains though it was not best at everything, it was damn good at everything and was the fighter that was able to take the fight to the heart of Germany.

So while I love my favorite 109 (and even the Spitfire) more than the 51, I got to say the 51 was the historical winner in this topic of "fighters".


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 22, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now if we want to discuss fighters (which we have done a dozen times on the forum), how can you argue against the P-51D. Sure I think it was overrated simply because people always overlook other aircraft (Spit, 109, 190, LA...) and just get all smitten over the 51. Fact remains though it was not best at everything, it was damn good at everything and was the fighter that was able to take the fight to the heart of Germany.
> 
> So while I love my favorite 109 (and even the Spitfire) more than the 51, I got to say the 51 was the historical winner in this topic of "fighters".



Yeah that'd probably be it. I guess it's hard to define a real "best"

Say, best dogfighter? Spit XIV, in my opinion.
Best bomber killer? 190D, maybe K4
Best high altitude fighter? 152...
Best multirole? Probably the Tempest...

And it goes on


I still love me my Spitfire XIV though. Can't wait for it in DCS.


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2015)

Not sure the Ta 152 falls within your parameters. Less than 50 production aircraft? It's an irrelevance and can't possibly be included, anymore than the Do335 or Hawker Fury/Sea Fury.

The term 'best' is far too vague to make any meaningful ranking, however, without the P-51 the European war would not have ended in early 1945. Without the Spitfire it might have been over in 1940.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2015)

Spacefire said:


> Yeah that'd probably be it. I guess it's hard to define a real "best"
> 
> Say, best dogfighter? Spit XIV, in my opinion.
> Best bomber killer? 190D, maybe K4
> ...



Well what are your perimeters? Every acft has its advantages and weaknesses. What altitude for instance!

When it comes to these "top" fighters, I think you are neglecting to take the biggest factor into account. Pilot skill.


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 22, 2015)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well what are your perimeters? Every acft has its advantages and weaknesses. What altitude for instance!
> 
> When it comes to these "top" fighters, I think you are neglecting to take the biggest factor into account. Pilot skill.



Of course pilot skill is a factor but the idea is to compare the pure performance of the planes.

And yeah, each aircraft does better at different altitudes, but I'm considering the ones that perform well at most altitudes.

Anyways this thread is pretty pointless. Feel free to lock it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2015)

Spacefire said:


> Of course pilot skill is a factor but the idea is to compare the pure performance of the planes.
> 
> And yeah, each aircraft does better at different altitudes, but I'm considering the ones that perform well at most altitudes.
> 
> Anyways this thread is pretty pointless. Feel free to lock it.



The thing is pilot skill directly relates to aircraft performance. A good pilot can get the most out of their aircrafts performance and utilizes the advantages over the other aircraft.

No need to lock a discussion. That is what forums are for.


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2015)

Pilot skill is a factor but the original premise is fair enough. The best pilot in an uncompetitive aircraft is going to have a hard time surviving. The whole point of the expensive and long training programmes implemented by all combatants was to get the average pilot to a level of proficiency at which he could survive long enough operationally to become an effective combat pilot.

You can still compare aircraft performance taking pilot skill as a level playing field. I think, relating to another thread, that a fictional 'average pilot' would do better in a Spitfire XIV than a Bf 109 K-4 for a variety of reasons, not all related directly to the respective performance of the two types. I would therefore rate the Spitfire above the Messerschmitt.

Put Erich Hartmann in the K-4 and a newly qualified wet behind the ears RAF type in the Spitfire and the real world result would almost certainly be different.

Herbert Weiss analysis of combat data led him to conclude that a pilot had an almost exactly 50:50 chance of surviving his first decisive combat. After five decisive encounters their chance of survival was increased by a factor of 20. 

Only 5% of pilots score five victories or more. This 5% will go on to claim 40% of all aerial victories. 

These figures are consistent for WW1, WW2 and the Korean conflict. This has led Stephen Bungay to write:

_"The sky contains two very different groups of pilots: a small group of hunter killers and the majority who are hunted. Amongst the hunted are the experienced who know how to get away from the hunter killers, and who also hunt themselves without often killing. And there are novices who either learn survival fast or simply provide the hunter killers with targets."_

In combat the pilot factor, given aircraft of at least comparable performance, is, as said above, the most important factor. This doesn't mean that performance comparisons can't be made.

All the modern training, the 'Top Gun' type of schools, are an effort to increase that 5% to a higher number, and to reduce the novices providing targets. There's not much evidence to determine whether it has or has not done that. 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2015)

stona said:


> Pilot skill is a factor but the original premise is fair enough. The best pilot in an uncompetitive aircraft is going to have a hard time surviving. The whole point of the expensive and long training programmes implemented by all combatants was to get the average pilot to a level of proficiency at which he could survive long enough operationally to become an effective combat pilot.
> 
> *You can still compare aircraft performance taking pilot skill as a level playing field.* I think, relating to another thread, that a fictional 'average pilot' would do better in a Spitfire XIV than a Bf 109 K-4 for a variety of reasons, not all related directly to the respective performance of the two types. I would therefore rate the Spitfire above the Messerschmitt.
> 
> ...



True...


----------



## pbehn (Aug 22, 2015)

stona said:


> Pilot skill is a factor but the original premise is fair enough. The best pilot in an uncompetitive aircraft is going to have a hard time surviving. The whole point of the expensive and long training programmes implemented by all combatants was to get the average pilot to a level of proficiency at which he could survive long enough operationally to become an effective combat pilot.
> 
> You can still compare aircraft performance taking pilot skill as a level playing field. I think, relating to another thread, that a fictional 'average pilot' would do better in a Spitfire XIV than a Bf 109 K-4 for a variety of reasons, not all related directly to the respective performance of the two types. I would therefore rate the Spitfire above the Messerschmitt.
> 
> ...



Great post Steve I would question the word "decisive" surely it is any close encounter, decisive implies an outcome like a kill.

Additionally most airforce fighter units were teams, not everyone is a hunter some are there to allow the hunter to hunt without being killed, the hunters wingman. I forget the name of a German ace, I think he had over 100 kills but was most proud of never losing a wingman.


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 22, 2015)

My concept was really just an expert pilot in each plane. It's hard to compare performance if you're considering novice pilots.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 22, 2015)

Spacefire said:


> My concept was really just an expert pilot in each plane. It's hard to compare performance if you're considering novice pilots.



I disagree with the choice of Tempest for multi role how was it at altitude? What was its range? I believe it was only cleared for ground attack in the dog days of the war. A formidable fighter in its best environment bu as an all round plane I dont think its the best, just a late model with huge power and 1944 dynamics.


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 22, 2015)

No Hellcat? Pretty effective and proven plane! Not many planes downed more enemy aircraft than the Hellcat, and had a bigger impact than the Hellcat in their respective theaters.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 22, 2015)

Pick a plane from the list... Spit XIV.


----------



## Spacefire (Aug 22, 2015)

Messy1 said:


> No Hellcat? Pretty effective and proven plane! Not many planes downed more enemy aircraft than the Hellcat, and had a bigger impact than the Hellcat in their respective theaters.



I'm comparing performance. I said in the OP that I wasn't comparing the most iconic or best performing planes of certain times, but purely the BEST plane of WW2.


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2015)

Spacefire said:


> My concept was really just an expert pilot in each plane. It's hard to compare performance if you're considering novice pilots.



I reckon you should modify that to 'average' pilot. From Bungay's definitions you might take this as one of those who has survived long enough to evade the true hunter killers whilst rarely killing themselves. For most air forces for most of the time these men were the majority.

When an air force was under pressure the relative number of novices would increase, the trick was to keep this proportion as low as possible. Park and Dowding managed this brilliantly during the BoB. Experienced hands were moved to squadrons in 11 Group, which bore the brunt of the fighting, to replace losses rather than entire squadrons being rotated in and out of that Group. This left many squadrons in other Groups barely operational (B-Class) or effectively non-operational (C-Class) but kept those at the sharp end with enough experienced pilots to prevent their destruction (A-Class).

When an air force was being defeated in an attritional battle, as the Luftwaffe in 1944, then the proportion of novices can become unacceptably high. It is noticeable how many of the Luftwaffe's Bodenplatte losses were men with a handful or less of operational missions (war flights).

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 23, 2015)

pbehn said:


> Great post Steve I would question the word "decisive" surely it is any close encounter, decisive implies an outcome like a kill.



I'm not sure of Weiss' definition of decisive, but usually an outcome where one or other of the pilots managed to break off the combat and evade would be considered a decision, not just a kill.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 23, 2015)

Spacefire said:


> I'm comparing performance. I said in the OP that I wasn't comparing the most iconic or best performing planes of certain times, but purely the BEST plane of WW2.


Not wanting to sound like an ass, but this list is really lopsided.

The F6F should be on that list, not only because it decimated the IJN and IJA forces, but because it's performance was world class and in some cases, better than the F4U.

The Japanese had several late-war fighters that were deadly and capable of out performing Allied adversaries, comparable to what the KI-84 was capable of (i.e.: KI-100, J2M, N1K2, etc.)

The Fw190D was a potent machine but I would lean towards the Fw190A-8 which was a devastating machine even to the last days of the war - and the Ta154 was not produced in sufficient numbers to be anything more than experimental, so why is it on the list?

You have the La-7 but not the YaK-9, which had comparable performance to the P-51D, especially the later variants.


----------



## Coors9 (Aug 23, 2015)

The P-47 doesn't get enough respect for what it did . It could easily mix it up high, and was a true Beast in the ground attack roll. A true warrior of WW2.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 4, 2015)

P-47M.


----------

