Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

swampyankee said:

On this day, there is no majority; the plurality is held by the Spitfire at 27%.
Any of these aircraft could have defeated any of their contemporaries if the pilots were using tactics appropriate to their aircraft or started with and were able to hold a tactical advantage.

After all, AD Skyraider pilots shot down MiG-15s, and it wasn't because the Spad was a particularly great fighter aircraft -- it wasn't -- but because the MiG drivers fought to the AD's strengths.

Click to expand...

Well said, P-40s downed a lot of Zero's by using the advantage. ME-109 pilots found out quickly that the spitfire engine stalled in negative Gs. The FW-190 could out turn both spitfire and me-109. If I remember right, the spitfire had the climb advantage. I used to be a real spitfire fan (fell in love with the Mark 21). After reading many pilot accounts I eventually became a fw-190 fan. All the top fighters were deadly in the right hands with a pilot who exploits the advantages and minimizes the disadvantages. The latest book I am reading is Green Hearts first in combat with the Dora 9. Great fighter with very green pilots and used at very low altitudes. The great performance did not help when the plane was not used in it's best role, or it's advantages leveraged. I recommend the book.

drewwizard said:

Well said, P-40s downed a lot of Zero's by using the advantage. ME-109 pilots found out quickly that the spitfire engine stalled in negative Gs. The FW-190 could out turn both spitfire and me-109. If I remember right, the spitfire had the climb advantage. I used to be a real spitfire fan (fell in love with the Mark 21). After reading many pilot accounts I eventually became a fw-190 fan. All the top fighters were deadly in the right hands with a pilot who exploits the advantages and minimizes the disadvantages. The latest book I am reading is Green Hearts first in combat with the Dora 9. Great fighter with very green pilots and used at very low altitudes. The great performance did not help when the plane was not used in it's best role, or it's advantages leveraged. I recommend the book.

Click to expand...

The Bf 109 could not out-turn the Spitfire.

The Fw 190 could not out-turn the Spitfire. But it could out-roll, the Spitfire.

The Fw 190A could out-climb the Spitfire V. Possibly not the ones with the cropped impeller, though.

The Spitfire XIV was judged to be able to out-climb, out-dive and out-turn a Fw 190A when carrying an auxiliary fuel tank.

drewwizard said:

P-40s downed a lot of Zero's by using the advantage.

Click to expand...

Please provide sources for such claims as the truth is the P-40 barely held a 1 to 1 kill ratio against the Zero. Read "Bloody Shambles" for starters.

'There are many very competent fighters listed here, and each one has it's own set of strengths and weaknesses. In my mind however it's probably easier to separate the herd into two altitude categories, such as which fighter was supreme below 20K and which ruled the skies above it. If that were the case here then I'd say the F6F was the dominant fighter below 20K and the P-51 above. I feel that the F6F's superb low speed handling and maneuverability, immense strength, and excellent gun platform characteristics gave it a nice balance of "weapons" to use in a dogfight that took place at low to medium altitudes. It was never bested by any of it's adversaries, and this also applies to the German fighters it encountered in mid 1944, however brief that encounter may have been.

And although Hellcat had a competent performance all the way up to it's service ceiling, I would still have to concede the fight to the Mustang above 20k because it's fairly well known that the P-51 was a machine that was at it's best high up, where many airplanes started to lose huge aspects of their performance envelope, becoming more vulnerable and thus being an easier target for enemy bullets. At these heights the P-51 had a nice combination of good speed, decent firepower, great range, adequate agility, and excellent visibility with it's bubble canopy. It basically was good or great at everything that was expected of a WWII fighter plane, especially when taking the fight to an enemy.

I don't think it's purely a coincidence that more American pilots earned "acedom" while flying the F6F and P-51 than any other type of US fighter. A combined 10,000 aerial victories says a lot for the prowess of these two great war machines.....

DarrenW said:

<snip>.

Click to expand...

Luckily, there is no flag-waving in that post

tomo pauk said:

Luckily, there is no flag-waving in that post

Click to expand...

Of course there's flag waving; the aircraft listed are too close in overall performance to permit an objective choice based merely on the aircraft's physical characteristics, so they get muddled by pilot quality, aerial tactics, and operational issues.

There is limited, objective data, albeit imperfect comparing some of these aircraft. I suspect that one can find much more reliable data comparing US to British aircraft than Allied to Axis aircraft, especially from before the end of the War, as the US and Commonwealth air services (not just Air Forces) were on relatively good terms, and exchanging data: the USN/USMC, USAAF, RAAF, RAF, RCAF, RN/FAA, etc were all talking to each other and flying overlapping sets of aircraft.

tomo pauk said:

Luckily, there is no flag-waving in that post

Click to expand...

LOL it may seem that way but everything I said is completely factual and unbiased. Should I be blamed for America producing an arsenal of excellent weaponry that had a major role in soundly defeating the oppressive Nazi and Japanese regimes????

DarrenW said:

LOL it may seem that way but everything I said is completely factual and unbiased. Should I be blamed for America producing an arsenal of excellent weaponry that had a major role in soundly defeating the oppressive Nazi and Japanese regimes????

Click to expand...

Completely factual it was not - you did not provided measurable data that might prove your point. You also seem to equate victory claims with proven victories.
Nobody was acusing you for feats of design, production and use of American weaponry.

tomo pauk said:

Completely factual it was not - you did not provided measurable data that might prove your point. You also seem to equate victory claims with proven victories.
Nobody was acusing you for feats of design, production and use of American weaponry.

Click to expand...

......Hmmmmm I think I used "measurable data" when I mentioned 10,000 aerial victories. Those are officially recognized totals provided by United States government sources, which are well known and accepted by the majority of people who frequent this forum. Didn't you notice I said "victories" and did not use the terms "kills" or "destroyed"? You really need to be more observant before starting a spirited debate with people for whom you disagree with or find contempt for.....

If dog fighting is the only criteria, would not biplanes rule?

vikingBerserker said:

If dog fighting is the only criteria, would not biplanes rule?

Click to expand...

I think that was a school of thought in the 1930s, Stona (I think) made a post about it a while ago.

DarrenW said:

......Hmmmmm I think I used "measurable data" when I mentioned 10,000 aerial victories. Those are officially recognized totals provided by United States government sources, which are well known and accepted by the majority of people who frequent this forum. Didn't you notice I said "victories" and did not use the terms "kills" or "destroyed"? You really need to be more observant before starting a spirited debate with people for whom you disagree with or find contempt for.....

Click to expand...

If you think that I went ad hominem, I apologize.
10000 victories do not equate with what aircraft was the best dogfighter. If that was so, we'd have the Bf 109 as a winner. Victories reflect much more than qualities of individual fighter aircraft - for example the state of training & experience of both sides, presence of force multipliers (radars on surface or in air, ditto for jammers*), numbers of oposing combatants. For example, the Hawker Tempest possesd far better performance than any in-service Hellcat, it rolled very fast, and it was capable to either beat or at least hold it's own vs. anything Luftwaffe throw against it. Ditto for Spitfire XIV, while Hellcat can't compete, as represeted in the US Navy comparative test where Fw 190 was pitted against Hellcat and Corsair.
I don't think that you will draw a correct picture of what majority of the forum members know and accept as a fact by reading the posts in short time.

*radars and other up-to-date electronics were crucial in winning the BoB and the Battle of Atlantic, plus assorted campaigns vs. Axis, many naval battles inn the ww2, Falkland war, Middle east wars

Your apology is not necessary but accepted nevertheless. The mention of victory totals was only one reason why I feel that these two aircraft are the best dog fighting aircraft of WWII. After all, the responses to this thread will normally be part opinion and part statistical in nature. I firmly believe that the actual war record of a particular fighter speaks volumes and should be included in any debate in which we are discussing it's relative merits.

The BF 109 was indeed a very successful aircraft and worthy of note. it's victory total should be included as well, along with any other attributes it may have possessed. But I was making an argument for the Hellcat and Mustang so why would I spend time building a case for it or FW 190???

Anyway, I have that report you mentioned concerning the US Navy's comparative trials between the F6F-3, the F4U-1, and the FW 190A-4 (Project TED No. PTR-11107 dated 17 Jan 1944). It's an excellent analysis but I have obviously drawn a completely different conclusion than what you proposed in your post. Maybe you should re-read it, as you may find yourself changing your view in regards to this supposed superiority of the FW 190A series over the Hellcat fighter.

The Tempest and late war Spitfires were indeed outstanding aircraft in their own right, and they too contributed to the destruction of Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent, Imperial Japan. And while I'll agree with you concerning the roll rate of each fighter (they did in fact exceed that of the F6F), there are other aspects of a performance envelope to consider when looking at dog fighting abilities. The Hellcat is known to have had one of the best high-speed rate of turn among the late war types so we have that to consider as well....

And I'm in complete agreement concerning the outside influences that effect the overall effectiveness of a fighter plane. But that's for another thread, we should just stick to the narrow topic at hand, which is which of the airplanes listed do we feel is the best "dogfighter" of WWII. I gave my reasons for selecting the F6F and P-51, and I see that you have your favorites as well. So why not just respect each other's opinions and share information freely, without making rude or snide comments, shall we?

Victory totals may be an indication as much of opportunity as it is of an aircraft's fighting qualities.

Opportunities against lesser opponents - aircraft, pilots (less well trained and/or novices) and situation.

DarrenW said:

......Hmmmmm I think I used "measurable data" when I mentioned 10,000 aerial victories.

Click to expand...

It's measurable data but it is not a direct comparison of the aircraft; as a comparison of aircraft it's contaminated by a host of factors such as pilot quality, tactics, aircraft serviceability, and sheer quantity.

DarrenW said:

Your apology is not necessary but accepted nevertheless. The mention of victory totals was only one reason why I feel that these two aircraft are the best dogfighting aircraft of WWII. After all, the responses to this thread will normally be part opinion and part statistical in nature. I firmly believe that the actual war record of a particular fighter speaks volumes and should be included in any debate in which we are discussing it's relative merits.

Click to expand...

War record has it's weight, however the quality of an aircraft contributes just a part on that, not 100%. Again, if we use war record as the main measure of quality of a fighter aircraft then Bf 109 was the best fighter ever.

The BF-109 was indeed a very successful aircraft and worthy of note. it's victory total should be included as well, along with any other attributes it may have possessed. But I was making an argument for the Hellcat and Mustang so why would I spend time building a case for it or FW-190???

Anyway, I have that report you mentioned concerning the US Navy's comparative trials between the F6F-3, the F4U-1, and the FW-190A/4 (Project TED No. PTR-11107 dated 17 Jan 1944). It's an excellent analysis but I have obviously drawn a completely different conclusion than what you proposed in your post. Maybe you should re-read it, as you may find yourself changing your view in regards to this supposed superiority of the FW-190A series over the Hellcat fighter.

Click to expand...

The test in question states that Fw 190 was better or at least equal in speed, rate of climb, acceleration, rate of roll, while the F6F was found to have better maneuverability, mostly turn capabilities.

The Tempest and late war Spitfires were indeed outstanding aircraft in their own right, and they too contributed to the destruction of Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent, Imperial Japan. And while I'll agree with you concerning the roll rate of each fighter (they did in fact exceed that of the F6F), there are other aspects of a performance envelope to consider when looking at dogfighting abilities. The Hellcat is known to have had one of the best overall rate of turn amongst the late war types so we have that to consider as well....

Click to expand...

Quirk is that having the rate of turn will win an aerial dogfight if the enemy does know what he's doing, or has an under-performing aircraft. The Japanese aircraft bein case in point - always turned well, but hacked from the skies once better tactics were employed by Allied ari forces/services, let alone once the Allies started employing slightly of much faster aircraft in Asia/Pacific (P-38, Spitfire, F6F, F4U, P-47, P-51). Even a well-flown P-40 will do well if the pilot keeps his speed up and avoid low-speed turns - P-40 rolled much better than Japanese when speed is high, and dived far better.
The RAF came in with the same conclusion with Spitfire V vs. Fw 190 - even with Spit turning better, it was dangerous to be in the same airspace with Fw 190. Only realistic and timely cure was introduction of better performing Spitfire, the Mk. IX.

And I'm in complete agreement concerning the outside influences that effect the overall effectiveness of a fighter plane. But that's for another thread, we should just stick to the narrow topic at hand, which is which of the airplanes listed do we feel is the best "dogfighter" of WWII. I gave my reasons for selecting the F6F and P-51, and I see that you have your favorites as well. So why not just respect each other's opinions and share information freely, without making rude or snide comments, shall we?

Click to expand...

My comment on 'outside influences' was to point oiut that your metrics (number of victories) is a product of many factors, not just aircraft quality.

tomo pauk said:

...while Hellcat can't compete, as represeted in the US Navy comparative test where Fw 190 was pitted against Hellcat and Corsair....

Click to expand...

Is that what you gathered after reading this report?!?

Excerpts from the aforementioned comparative tests:

"The F4U-1 and F6F-3 were found to be much more maneuverable than the FW 190. No maneuvers could be done in the FW 190 which could not be followed by both the F4U-1 and F6F-3...."

"It was found that the FW 190 requires a much greater turning radius in which to loop than either the F4U-1 or F6F-3, and tends to stall sharply when trying to follow the F4U-1 or F6F in a loop..."

"The general opinion of the pilots who made the comparative tests is that the FW 190 is an extremely simple airplane to fly and is designed for pilot convenience, but is not equal to the F4U-1 or F6F-3 in combat..."

"All the pilots agreed that the F4U-1 and F6F-3 would be preferred in actual combat operations..."

"Results of comparative tests of turning characteristics showed the F4U-1 and F6F-3 to be far superior to the FW 190. Both the F6F and F4U could follow the FW 190A in turns with ease at any speed, but the FW 190 could not follow either of the two airplanes..."

Speed comparisons (MPH):

Height (Feet )/ FW 190A-4 / F6F-3
200/ 334/ 334
5,000/ 357/ 351
10,000/ 357/ 348
15,000/ 386/ 369
20,000/ 401/ 381
25,000/ 410/ 391

Diving (never exceed) restrictions:
FW 190A-4: 466 MPH below 10,000 feet ("according to captured document and posted on indicator" - quote from report)
F6F-3: 477 MPH below 10,000 feet (according to wartime Pilot's Handbook)

As you can plainly see there isn't a huge difference in top speed between the two airplanes until around 15,000 feet. But even at these higher altitudes the difference is negligible IMHO and would not change the outcome of a dogfight.

tomo pauk said:

Quirk is that having the rate of turn will win an aerial dogfight if the enemy does know what he's doing, or has an under-performing aircraft. The Japanese aircraft bein case in point - always turned well, but hacked from the skies once better tactics were employed by Allied ari forces/services, let alone once the Allies started employing slightly of much faster aircraft in Asia/Pacific (P-38, Spitfire, F6F, F4U, P-47, P-51). Even a well-flown P-40 will do well if the pilot keeps his speed up and avoid low-speed turns - P-40 rolled much better than Japanese when speed is high, and dived far better.
The RAF came in with the same conclusion with Spitfire V vs. Fw 190 - even with Spit turning better, it was dangerous to be in the same airspace with Fw 190. Only realistic and timely cure was introduction of better performing Spitfire, the Mk. IX.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, it was more than just new tactics that helped to defeat the "dreaded" Japanese Zero. The A6M was indeed a great turning aircraft, but only up to around 200 MPH, after that the controls began to get heavy and it's turning radius went south rather quickly. A dogfight above those speeds was suicide for a Zero, and when the Japanese pilot broke hard into a dive to escape this situation he would most likely be caught and shot down by the Hellcat pilot.

Since the poll is about combat between 15,000 and 35,000ft I don't see how anything could touch the Me 262 since if it doesn't want to fight you cant make it. The situation in 1944/45 was that the need to attack the bombers forced combat but in 1 on 1 combat I cant see anything else getting near it.

swampyankee said:

It's measurable data but it is not a direct comparison of the aircraft; as a comparison of aircraft it's contaminated by a host of factors such as pilot quality, tactics, aircraft serviceability, and sheer quantity.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, but so is all other data, such as various flight tests, combat reports, and pilot reflections.

Speaking of flight tests, were all aircraft from all nations test flown by the same pilots, using the same test instruments that were calibrated to read identical under the same conditions? This is a rhetorical question of course.....