1942: the best fighter (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Okay, than its 190A-4, 109F-4 G-2, Spit IX, P-38F, Mustang I - these do have some 50-100 km/h edge in dash speed vs. the rest. I've forgot to add Typhoon, a rather troublesome mount for 1942.
The Japanese planes get a nod for exceptional combat range (Ki-43, -44, A6M) - perhaps a crucial asset when the enemy has low-quality, or non-existant, radar coverage.
 
I disagree.

The U.S. produced more F4Us during 1942 then Germany produced Me-110s during 1939. The Luftwaffe got the led out and Me-110s participated in combat during September to December 1939. A similiar sense of urgency would have gotten the F4U into combat during 1942 at Guadalcanal and/or North Africa.
 
The F4U first flew May of 40, they began trials with it in Feb. 41. The first production example flew in late June 42. That timeline already was considered a remarkable achievement.

Then the USN started testing production examples July 42, and pronounced it combat ready, but not for carrier use in Nov. 42.
It doesn't matter how many they produced, what matters is how many were at their combat units, with the support personnel trained in keeping them in the air, and pilots with enough time in the aircraft to be of any use. That process was already accelerated in the F4U's case, I don't see how it could have been sped up more.
 
I disagree.

The U.S. produced more F4Us during 1942 then Germany produced Me-110s during 1939. The Luftwaffe got the led out and Me-110s participated in combat during September to December 1939. A similiar sense of urgency would have gotten the F4U into combat during 1942 at Guadalcanal and/or North Africa.

I don't know Dave, as much as I like the idea of a combat deployed F4U in NA or the South Pacific in 1942; I do get the impression there was a sense of urgency driving US manufacturers in its production at that time and don't see how it could have realistically happened.

The XF6F went from 1st flight to production in about 3+ months but went into combat almost a year later.
Hellcat Production appears to have run from:

1st production F6F: Oct 3, 1942
12 in 1942,
128 by March 31, 1943
So in about 6 months from first production there were 140 F6F in the inventory. A month later there were many more.
130 in April
First combat by August 1943, or about 10 months after the first production bird flew

Compare now to the F4U-1:

July 31, 1942 first production F4U-1
178 produced by year's end, or within 6 months
First combat missions are flow in February or about 7 months from first production.

Of course the F6F involved sqaudron carrier quals and other CV related adjustments but it still strikes me as an accelerated schedule for the F4U-1.

I had mistakenly gotten the impression, probably due to attemoting to read with my oatmeal encrusted lenses that the F4U had been deployed to Guadacanal in Novermber 1942. :oops: But nope...
 
Last edited:
The Germans "to get the lead out" in 1939-40 only needed to deploy an Aircraft a few hundred miles from the factory and the provision of spare parts was similarly just a day or two drive by truck from the factory. American deployment was by ship and/or ship-train-multiple hop ferry flights. It could take weeks to get a plane from the factory to a combat theater. First Corsairs are made in Stratford CT, 3000 miles from Los Angeles, let alone how many thousand miles from the south pacific. Provision of spare parts,trained mechanics and other items needed to actually use the aircraft effectively rather than just post a head line need time.
 
I disagree.

The U.S. produced more F4Us during 1942 then Germany produced Me-110s during 1939. The Luftwaffe got the led out and Me-110s participated in combat during September to December 1939. A similiar sense of urgency would have gotten the F4U into combat during 1942 at Guadalcanal and/or North Africa.


One source says that the Germans had built 159 Bf 110s by the end of Aug 1939 and totaled 315 by the end of 1939 compared to the 178 F4Us built in 1942.
 
From what I'm understanding from you guys is the Corsair had zero combat in 1942. If that's the case, then in my opinion it doesn't count even if they produced 10,000 of them in '42. Being delivered on carriers, supply ships, and back in the states does no good.

I'll stay with my selection of the Fw-190, but I have no problem with a selection of the Spit, the 109, the P-38, or even the A6M. All fine aircraft with their own strengths and weaknesses.
 
Fw 190A-3/4...hands down.

Just look at the RAF loss records from the "Kanalfront" during 1942. Spit Mk IX (in it's initial rendition) was an improvement on the Mk V but upon intitial deployment, it still failed to close the "gap" during 1942. The RAF took a serious "sh*tkicking" from JG 2 and JG 26 during this period; no amount of sidestepping will get you around the cold hard numbers. And yes, the "shoe was on the other foot" for the RAF; endurance was not in their favor, but they were also manhandled (on a regular basis) even when this factor played little to no part in the equation (i.e Dieppe 19/08/42).
 
FW190 and Spit IX equal in my mind. All the air tests put them as equal, all combat experience puts them as equal and the morale impact was about the same. One had the advantage of firepower, roll rate and low down performance and the other the advantage of agility and altitude. Both served until the end of the war with fairly minor enhancements.

Its a Spit I vs 109E again.

P38F had a number of issues, the Mustang I was limited at any altitude, F4U a little too late, the Me109 was starting to get left behind. The Spit IX trumped one of the Me 109's previous aces ie altitude fighting and the SPit IX was very close to its dive speed.
 
What if we mix up the players a bit? That may change how we see the true value of the aircraft, outside of history. What if, the Lightning is intercepting the British bombers coming in over occupied France? Now throw the Fw190 flying side by side with Spitfires as escort. I'm not sure of the range of each, how is that going to work? Fun stuff.
 
Ki-43 Zero were instrumental in Japanese victories of 1942. How well the Spit 190 would've served instead of those?

Hi, Glider,
What were the 'issues' of the P-38F?
 
I think the P-38E ( maybe F?) models available in 1942 did not have turbosuperchargers. I believe these aircraft also had a very unsatistfactory solution to the compressibilty problem, that limited dive performance (and perhaps low altitude maneuverability?) somewhat and included restrictions to dive speed.

This is about as much as I recall from reading Caidin's book on the Lightning many years ago: from wiki:

"Test flights revealed problems initially believed to be tail flutter. During high-speed flight approaching Mach 0.68, especially during dives, the aircraft's tail would begin to shake violently and the nose would tuck under, steepening the dive. Once caught in this dive, the fighter would enter a high-speed compressibility stall and the controls would lock up, leaving the pilot no option but to bail out (if possible) or remain with the aircraft until it got down to denser air, where he might have a chance to pull out. During a test flight in May 1941, USAAC Major Signa Gilkey managed to stay with a YP-38 in a compressibility lockup..."

I expect you were already aware of this... That's about all I recall on the topic.

Mal
 
Last edited:
ALL P-38s had turbo-superchargers. The aircraft the US got from the rejected British order without turbos were called P-322s and none went overseas, all were used in the US as combat trainers or for experimental work.

There may have been issues with the turbo controllers on the earlier P-38s but these were somewhat temperature related and low altitude and or tropical use didn't cause as many problems.
 
ALL P-38s had turbo-superchargers. The aircraft the US got from the rejected British order without turbos were called P-322s and none went overseas, all were used in the US as combat trainers or for experimental work.

There may have been issues with the turbo controllers on the earlier P-38s but these were somewhat temperature related and low altitude and or tropical use didn't cause as many problems.

WHile wiki is not the most authoritative source... It is usually not too far off the mark for a quick check...

In March 1940, the French and the British ordered a total of 667 P-38s for US$100M,[42] designated Model 322F for the French and Model 322B for the British. The aircraft would be a variant of the P-38E. The overseas Allies wished for complete commonality of Allison engines with the large numbers of Curtiss P-40 Tomahawks both nations had on order, and thus ordered for the Model 322 twin right-handed engines instead of counter-rotating ones, and without turbo-superchargers

I undoubetdly misread that as "The aircraft variant would be the P-38E"
 
About the only one plane that was not affected by compressibility issues was the P-51, due to great implementation of laminar flow wing. It took a plane to be both sleek with powerful engine to encounter compressibility, and the 1st US design to 'comply' was P-38 - so earning some un-deserved bad rap? I mean, both P-39 P-40 could hardly go that high fast, then dive to attain Mach 0.65 in order to enter compressibility?
The 'Lightning I' for RAF (a.k.a. P-322) was equipped with C series, non turbo V-1710s (2 x 1040 HP?), while featuring a considerable lower firepower. As SR6 said already, it was never used in combat. The -F featured the F series V-1710, 1st with 1150 HP , uprated/allowed to 1325 HP in Aug 1942.
 
Glider Spit IX and 109G had near performances in '42 and if i remember right tthe data on losses not show any superiority for the british side
 
Got to go with the FW190 it was a proper shock for the British who hadnt experienced anything like it since the Fokker scourge of WWI had the RFC so worried
 
I suspect Me-109F4s contributed to this at least as much as early model Fw-190s. The Me-109F4 was no slouch vs contemporary 1942 fighter aircraft.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back