Best all-round fighter of WWII

Best all-round dogfighter of WWII?

  • Total voters
    78

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

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

Juha
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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."
 
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?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The last dogfight of WWII
Replies
5
Views
2K
Gnomey
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Barrett
B
S
Wing shapes of Russian fighters
Replies
15
Views
806
wrathofatlantis
W
S
Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
Steamed_Banana
S
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
4K
Airborne2001
A
Menu
Log in
Register