# Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever



## Shooter7.62 (Mar 11, 2017)

There would have to be some sort of rules set to make this a reasonable argument?

There is no question that Pilots flying the various types of Me-109 shot down more planes than any other type. In fact it's margins are so large that various versions of it are in first, second and third place compared to all other planes that served in WW-II!
But it was not a great plane to fly, had many vices and was not at the top of any performance criteria, so why was it so successful?

So, how do we judge which plane deserves to be the best had it had the same number and types of opportunities to score?
Secondly, does it have to have been made in large numbers, or is a one off prototype eligible? I would think that the plane that had the best combination of qualities and at least flew in service for most of the heaviest fighting would be eligible? ( Other wise how could it have the chance to run up big scores?)

Or should we base this argument strictly on which plane had the best set of attributes that would have made it a great combat fighter/attack plane? How about single vs twin engines?


----------



## herman1rg (Mar 11, 2017)

Hawker Hurricane is my choice,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Mar 11, 2017)

YYYAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN !

Boring we all know the Bf 109 in any version is the greatest fighter ever built and would probably even kick the F-22's arse in a dogfight.
you have at least three different log in names telling us so, please stop !

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 11, 2017)

... for ease of operation, my choice would be the Spitfire. For bring-me-home survivability my choice would be the P-47 Thunderbolt.


----------



## stona (Mar 11, 2017)

Hawker Sea Fury

Cheers

Steve


----------



## gomwolf (Mar 11, 2017)

I want to choose Fiat G.56 but it was not used in war... So Bf109 is my choice.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 11, 2017)

Goerings Luftwaffe never really recovered from the mauling it got from Hurricanes in France and UK.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jimbob (Mar 11, 2017)

For what is worth, I have met many WW2 German pilots in my line of work restoring and maintaining WW2 aircraft and they would all walk past a hanger full of P-51s and a P-38 and stop at the P-47 and say "I hate these things. I was shot down by one of these." As for the Pacific theater, you can't argue with the Hellcat kill record.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 11, 2017)

gomwolf said:


> I want to choose Fiat G.56 but it was not used in war... So Bf109 is my choice.



The question was 'best piston engined fighter ever?' No need for it to have flown in WW2, which is why I went for the Sea Fury. If you want the G.56 you can have it.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Mar 11, 2017)

In performance as piston engined planes I would say the Bearcat and Seafury were about the best and little to choose between them. However they were obsolete as fighters at the time they went into service, it was only the special requirements of landing and taking off from carriers. "Best" is a title that has many facets, to me there are only two contenders, the Bf109 and the Spitfire, both were there at the start and the finish and were competitive with the best of the opposition with engines of 1000BHP and 2000BHP+. My vote goes to the Spitfire because it bested the Bf109 in the BoB and the battle of Malta, there were many other factors of course but the BoB and Malta were 2 conflicts that were in the air.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 12, 2017)

In many ways the greatest best piston engine fighter was never built as the technology became a dead end so never reached its full potential.
If i had to say then i would go Bearcat or Sea Fury. Or Fokker Eindecker.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 12, 2017)

I'll vote for the Me 109, because it could turn inside anything at the drop of a slat and shoot across the circle.

2nd place goes to the B-17. Shot down more enemy fighters than any other allied aircraft. German air crash investigators determined this by examining the shape, size and angle of bullet holes in every downed Luftwaffe fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 12, 2017)

wuzak said:


> I'll vote for the Me 109, because it could turn inside anything at the drop of a slat and shoot across the circle.
> 
> 2nd place goes to the B-17. Shot down more enemy fighters than any other allied aircraft. German air crash investigators determined this by examining the shape, size and angle of bullet holes in every downed Luftwaffe fighter.


Hilarious post Wuzak however I really wish some people would stop riding their hobby horses. No Bf 109 ever shot down anything, it was the pilot inside it that pressed the button. However proud a modern day armchair expert may view things today any sane person would take the B17 option, when you had completed your tour you could step down from the front line, that was not an option to LW pilots.


----------



## rochie (Mar 13, 2017)

wuzak said:


> I'll vote for the Me 109, because it could turn inside anything at the drop of a slat and shoot across the circle.
> 
> 2nd place goes to the B-17. Shot down more enemy fighters than any other allied aircraft. German air crash investigators determined this by examining the shape, size and angle of bullet holes in every downed Luftwaffe fighter.


Wuzak, you forgot, canons mounted on the centre line are twice as effective than mounted on the wings !


----------



## wuzak (Mar 13, 2017)

rochie said:


> Wuzak, you forgot, canons mounted on the centre line are twice as effective than mounted on the wings !



Oops sorry. You are correct. 

Centreline guns are worth twice as much as wing guns and you can shoot from much farther out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 28, 2017)

I asked a two people I know and figured it would be best to divide all this into the following categories

I. Type of Fighter

Overall: Regardless of whether they be land-based, carrier-based, or hell amphibious, they are just the best
Land-Based: They take off from runways. Bonus points if they can be modified to takeoff from carriers

Carrier-Based: Designed to takeoff from carriers, but aren't float planes. Modified land-based aircraft can be placed here.
Seaplane/Amphibious: I only know of two aircraft that could readily fit this description (N1K-1, and A6M-N), and are capable of taking off or landing on the sea, some can also be catapulted off a ship, but has a float-hull and cannot land on a ship as a carrier-based plane. You can ignore this last item if you wish.
II. Era

Early WWII (1939-1942): These aircraft were built in the 1930's. Some were formidable early on, and were rendered obsolete by technological advance, though some soldiered on right on up to the end.

Late WWII (1942-1945): There were some older aircraft that were replaced at this time, some that just entered service, and some which kept on going.
II. Performance

Aircraft Stability
Stall & spin characteristics (normal and accelerated)

Maximum top-speed and acceleration-rate at low, medium, and high altitudes in level flight

Maximum dive-speed, acceleration, and mach-number
Rate of climb at low, medium, and high altitudes

Zoom-climb performance

Maximum roll-rate at low, medium and high airspeed.

Instantaneous rate of turn and corner-velocity
Sustained turning-velocity at low, medium, and high altitude
Rate of climb at low, medium, and high altitudes

Range (at optimum and tactically usable speeds) at low, medium, and high altitudes.
III. Ruggedness & Adaptability

Ability to absorb structural damage, protect the pilot, and keep flying

Ease of maintenance in the field

Ability to be fitted with new equipment and remain workable
IV. Human Factors

Cockpit size & instrument layout
Control forces (stick & rudder) across the speed-range, and control-harmony
Stall-warning onset
Gun placement and ease of aim
Ease of operation of engine controls

Torque and P-factor characteristics during takeoff, low-speed flight, and (if applicable) engine out


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 28, 2017)

My thoughts would be the following designs

Land-Based & Overall

*Spitfire:* It was flying the full length of the war and started out as an effective aircraft with high speed, and rate of climb, and a rate of turn that was beat by only a few fighters that I know of (Oscar, Zero, and Hurricane). As time went on it only became able to fly & climb faster, top-out at higher altitudes, cruise higher, accelerate better at lower speeds, roll-faster with some variants, as well as fly further than the earlier interceptor requirement demanded, and the only thing that seemed to decline was the rate of turn, though it seemed quite good anyway, and everybody else seemed to suffer the same problem. 
Its armament early on included 8 x 0.303's, but eventually included sub-variants that featured mixes of machine-gun and cannon, and all-cannon variants; air-to-ground capability was also added as a means of drawing up German fighters during the desert campaigns, and innovative types developed a new type of tropical filter that was even better than Supermarine's arrangement, as well as an improvised high-altitude variant.
Later versions would see the Merlin-60's, and eventually the Griffon installed, which would greatly improve climb and top-speed; certain variants would have fuel-bladders in the wings, increasing range to the point that bomber escort missions were sometimes possible; the wings would also be stiffened allowing a dive-speed that was among the best (if not THE best) in the world among piston (and some jets too...): Mach 0.85 was the placard limit, with tests that allowed dives to go to 0.89 in normal configuration, 0.92 with a stabilator (and, if you really want to get anal, eventually 0.94 in 1952 in a PR variant -- I wasn't joking when I said "and some jets").

*P-51 Mustang:* It first flew in 1940, and entered service in 1942. Using the same engine as the P-40, it could fly faster and further owing to cleaner aerodynamics. It appeared to be more maneuverable as well, with a dive-speed that was faster than anything in our inventory. By 1942 it was already as fast as a Spitfire VB with twice the range, and it would soon get better, as the RAF would fit it with the Merlin-60 series: With a twin-stage supercharger, a liquid-to-air after-cooler, a redesigned carburetor, and a four-bladed propeller; it could climb twice as fast and cruise in the low/mid 30,000 foot range, and also increased it's range. The addition of drop-tanks further increased it's range, and the USAAF would eventually reposition some equipment and make room for an 85 gallon center-fuel tank (the RAF never followed through on this), making the P-51B/C able to fly far enough to escort for bombers, while cruising at proper altitude (3,000-5,000 feet greater than the bombers) at a tactically useful speed (300 mph), while essing: It would begin operations of this sort in 1944, and increasingly relieve the P-38J (and later variants) as it could dive-faster.
The P-51D's had a cut-back rear-fuselage, a bubble-canopy, and a redesigned tail-fin, an extra pair of guns, and would become the most common variant: Though it's engine had a lower critical altitude, it still had enough surplus power to carry it into the 30,000 foot-range anyway. It would serve in the Pacific as a B-29 escort as well as a B-17 and B-24 escort, with the ability to cruise over the ocean and drain-out the center tank, drop-tanks, and with the B-29 and P-51 cruising at the same speed, there was no need for essing -- missions out of Iwo Jima would be 1000 miles each way.
Some highly redeeming qualities about the P-51 was that the cockpit was great from a human factors standpoint: Everything was right where it was supposed to be, so pilots could focus on the important stuff. It also had, in its own way, a sort of super-cruise for it's era: With low-cooling drag at high-speed, low overall drag, propulsive thrust from the exhaust-stacks, and good ram-compression, it would actually be able to fly an 830 mile flight (415 each way) at 395-397 mph! I'm not sure if it was the fastest, but it was fast!
Some unredeeming qualities about the P-51B/C & P-51D was the center-tank: It increased the range alright, but it also pushed the center of gravity dangerously far back. It was pretty much on the neutral limit, so the plane was very twitchy, and contrary to the instinctive idea of tapping from the internal tanks while on the ground and just after takeoff; then switching to the drop-tanks: One would actually drain from the center-tank first; then switch to the drop-tanks and see how much fuel you could suck out of that before you encountered fighters and had to punch them off. Some people had decided to have pilots flying long-ranged missions first fly the plane with the center-tank filled to 65 gallons then 85 to give them the hang of dealing with a barely stable aircraft.

Maneuverability was an interesting subject with the P-51 as, provided the aircraft had the center-tank empty, no drop-tanks, and had some fuel from the wings drained: It would be better than the P-40 in turning performance at all speeds, as well as the Me-109 (except possibly very slow); as the fuel load was increased into the long-range mission, it's turning rate would be inferior to the P-40 and Me-109 at lower speeds, but better at higher speeds owing to less drag and more thrust.

Carrier Based

*F6F Wildcat:* The F4U was also a remarkable aircraft too, but the F6F had a superior rate of climb early on, and maintained a better turn-rate, and its top-speed was actually not too far off from the F4U (F4U: 395-417; F6F: 379.5-395). It was much easier to bring aboard the carrier-deck for the pilots that flew it.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 28, 2017)

Sea Fury or F8F Bearcat, for reasons


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 29, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> Sea Fury or F8F Bearcat, for reasons


I'm curious about something -- does it count if the a/c flew during the war but wasn't in operational service?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious about something -- does it count if the a/c flew during the war but wasn't in operational service?


Not when the thread title doesnt ask the question.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 29, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious about something -- does it count if the a/c flew during the war but wasn't in operational service?



Thread title said "......Ever"


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> Thread title said "......Ever"


Ah, but maybe it meant in WW2 Pacific theatre?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 29, 2017)

Fubar57,

Oh, well then I'd say the Sea Hornet would be among one of them

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious about something -- does it count if the a/c flew during the war but wasn't in operational service?



Title was "best piston engine fighter *ever*" which basically means the post war fighters unless you really believe they designed, built and put into service fighters that they believed were inferior to the war time fighters. 

F4U-5 vrs ?????


----------

