Best all-round fighter of WWII

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

jim said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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