Best Fighter III (1 Viewer)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Do you have the written off records for other aircraft?

 

[Parmigiano]

Hi everybody, been lurking the forum for a while and finally registered

One reflection point on this topic: it is almost impossible to come to a rational conclusion, we'll never be able to compare apples with apples.
For instance, every aircraft or improvement made in Germany after 1943 was heavily burdened by the overall situation (i.e. need to work with lowering quality fuel and raw materials, need to be assembled underground etc.) while the developments managed in the US and UK could rely on optimal environment and resources.

Also, the Germans were forced to shove in service every new achievement (often disregarding the reliability) while the Allied forces tend to rely on validated solutions: this could very well explain in part the German advantage on shown technology.

If we want to evaluate the design, then the Me262 is in my opinion unchallenged (although it was more a bomber-destroyer than a fighter)

What would had happened if Junkers could had tested the 004 in a normal situation instead of 'freezing' the development as soon as it was barely suited for operations? We will never know.

ciao

 

[lesofprimus]

Welcome to the site Parm...

I find the Fw-190D-9 to be the best Fighter of WWII... About 1 out of 3 members of this Board also agrees with that aircraft...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'm not sure what i'd pick........

 

[Smokey]

Does the He162 count?

http://members.tripod.com/airmodeller/48GrHe162.htm

It had some structural problems, but these appear to have been solved during production
It would have a great mix of speed and maneuvrability, range seems poor, so best interceptor maybe?
Service history is a tad short and the claims are 1 He 162 shot down by an allied fighter for one typhoon lost in return

 

[lesofprimus]

Lanc, if memory serves me right, u never did put ur 2 cents in on this one...

 

[Parmigiano]

Les, I agree with the majority on the 'Langenase Dora' as best prop driven fighter of WW II

About the He 162 Salamander, I would not personally include it in the 'best fighter' contest.
The machine was developed in the 'Volksjaeger' program, to have an high performance fighter that should have been cheap and fast to produce and easy enough to fly by untrained pilots.
It achieved the first goals but not the last: apparently was a bit tricky to fly and required an experienced horseman.
It is a mistery if it actually saw combact action, although a good number was produced and several hundreds were almost completed by the end of the war.
As many of the last year planes was pushed in production before all the 'natural' youth problems were ironed out, typically they had to change the planned guns (2 x MK108) with 2x MG151 because the vibration of the 30mm were too much for the structure.

A strenghtened version, plus many other variants with Jumo 004 instead of BMW003, with butterfly tail, with 2x Argus pulsejet (the same engine as V1 cruise missile) and others were either on drawing board or in prototype stage.

Sorry, I can't state numbers here because I'm away from home and have no access to my documentation: in case I will come back with it but not before September.

cheers

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you Les either the Fw-190 D-9 or the Ta-152H.

Also, the Germans were forced to shove in service every new achievement (often disregarding the reliability)

This I disagree with. Yes they did shove into service everything whether it was reliable or not which they should not have done but they did this by choice and dumb mistakes. They did not have to they had aircraft that were competitive with the allied aircraft like the Dora-9. They just made bad choices by not making them in large numbers rather than mass produce projects that had not affect on the outcome of the war.

 

[Parmigiano]

Yes Adler, I think you have a good point here: how much they forced in service 'experimental' planes because of the desperate situation and how much because of their 'technological nymphomania'.

Another peculiarity unexplainable by common sense is why they released the patent rules only very late (I remember late in 44):the Allieds used to share know-how routinely (see Merlin built by Packard, Hurricanes and Lancs in Canada, the sleeve valve issue in the Napier Sabre cured with technology borrowed from Bristol etc.), while in Germany every Company was engineering their projects in almost complete isolation.

As example, the 262 and 163 were developed at Messerschmidt in two completely separated pipelines, nowhere the Lippisch and the Voigt team shared know how and solutions.

This brought to the development of many potentially great designs but at the cost of a waste of resources that no Nation (with the possible exception of US because of industrial power and 'privileged' situation) could have sustained.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Actually many programs were worked on by several companies. Lippisch worked on several Messerschmitt programs and because of work load some were handed off to other companies like the Me-155 was handed over to Blohm Voss and later renamed the Bv-155 after design changes.

 

[wmaxt]

Do you have the written off records for other aircraft?

I have a few numbers but my research has shown that the following numbers I'm going to include the paragraphs both before and after the numbers. This is from the 8th AF Losses against the AXIS Powers.

Other losses occurred too. Collisions, training accidents and so on. The table below summarizes all losses in the ETO during the war:

B-17 - 4,754
B-24 - 2,112
P-47 - 1,043
P-38 - 451
P-51 - 2,201

Now this does not include any of the other type medium aircraft and light aitcraft, the 9th and 11th tactical AF losses and other commands.

At first I thought it was all these particular aircraft but not wright-offs howeverthe more I check the more I belive they represent all the aitcraft of these types lost but only by the 8th AF.

Added together they ammount to about 2/3 of the aircraft the AAF statistical records show. The following numbers are the more common numbers of total aircraft lost in the ETO by every AAF group:

Plane - Sorties - losses
P-47 - 423,435 - 3,077
P-51 - 213,837 - 2,520
P-38 - 129,849 - 1758
P-40 - 67,059 - 553
P-39 - 30,547 - 107

These numbers add up to about 1/3 more than the AAF statistical records which claim we lost 5,324 but according to the 8th AF losses page those don't include wright-offs (the AAF stats).

I have yet to reconcile the different numbers, the one thing I can say for certain is that 90% of the P-38 plane to plane contact with the Germans and the losses resunting from the "awful record of the P-38 escorts" was in the 8th and resulted in 451 losses for 1,700+/- kills this still included cold/engine problems/experiance/numbers/etc. Those issues including air to air contact didn't affect those aircraft in the 9th AF who were primarily on attack missions. Also those comparisons I made earlier are basicaly ok (they still apply to the escorts where the 8th airforce losses page is referenced) they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

As I get a clearer picture I will post it. If I have confused or missled anyone I appoligize - it was unintentional.

wmaxt

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good info there thanks.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

…I'm a new member, stumbled upon this site looking for photos for one of my CFS-2 P-51D repaints.

I've been a WW-2 Aircraft junkie for forever. I was born in 1961.

When I started looking around, I saw names I've seen on other 'flightsim' sites. Wow!!! Here's where those guys hang!!!

I usually keep quiet about things; but, for lack of a broader vocabulary, the 'muck' surrounding which was the best/worst aircraft...

To me things are a bit clearer cut. For example: To argue weight be given to sheer performance, or to the ease of manufacture, or to the aircraft's ability to perform it's specified task negating it's actual environment, is, simply nonsense.

Create 'Weighted' awards if you'd like. But the 'Best' award should be for the best, period.

Best fighter of WW-2 without question, was/is the North American P-51. It may not have been the fastest, hardest hitting, survivable, or most agile fighter made during the time. In fact it may not have held any performance category 'record', except range. Combined with the ability to meet most of is adversaries on equal or better footing, as an entire package, the best is the '51'; there was simply none better. Runner up has to be the Hawker Hurricane. Again, as a package, as applied during the Battle of Britain, there was no more 'outstanding' fighter. These aircraft excelled as none others during WW-2, in my opinion. No other fighter aircraft affected the war as they did. Honorable mention in order of preference: Me-109; Spitfire; FW-190; F6F-3; P-47. I believe the 'Great Aircraft' line ends here, cold but... My opinion.

There were many other wonderful fighter aircraft fielded; such as the Re-2005, the Me-262, the Ki-100, the La-7, the A6M-2, the Ms-420, or the Typhoon. Standouts in limited encounters; or within their specialized 'window' of opportunity; or handicapped by fleeting production quality; seeing very limited war time exposure; or great before their weaknesses were 'understood'; or produced in time to serve on both sides; or when they didn't catch fire and stayed together in the air. Some, fate simply wouldn't allow, such as the Whirlwind, Lighting, or Mosquito as they possessed, for their time, the security of an extra engine, the penalty of the same. Add to the penalty side extra costs in acquisition operation, with the exceptions of maybe the Me-262, to lesser degree the P-38 and Mosquito, twin engine fighters were not on the 1st rung until the 'modern jet' era.

If we were to base the best WW2 fighter, argue weight be given to sheer performance, or to the ease of manufacture, or to the aircraft's ability to perform it's specified task negating it's actual environment, the winner/s would be the F4U Corsair La-11 (direct evolution of the La-5). Built well into the 50's these were the last new build aircraft that governments (France USSR) paid to have built and that served as fighters (No A-26, Pe-2, or Piper 'Enforcer' comments please) during WW2. Money talks, BS walks.
If I were asked which fighter I was to fly during WW2, it would be, recently changed from the P-51, and not even on my personal favorite list, like an F4U, or Tempest, until recently, the P-47. Wow, why not the plane I said was the best. Well, although the '51' was the best fighter, it is not my 1st personal choice because although it excelled in escort rolls, I wonder what accounting history would have awarded the '51' if it were to have to intercept a bomber formations with fighter escort; in other words if the tables were turned. Or to be blunt, I don't think the '51' would have been the success it was if it was to have the roll of being a defensive fighter. Ground attack missions during Korea, from what I remember, from what I've read, were not a good match, and I feel maybe the '47's in ANG service at the time, were not brought to Korea, as they were much more costly to operate… but then how do I justify the 'new build' Marine Corp F4Us… Anyway, the '47' seems the WW2 package that is most survivable in my eyes. Fast enough to walk away from all except the Me-262, and rare variants of other types, heavily armed, armored, wide landing gear, simple (although not without development problems) powerful, robust, air cooled radial; no fuel in the wings (-N/K the exception); and from all accountings ( stats that I can recall), extremely well made, even the Curtis built ships.

As for the worst fighter of WW2, for me, although its design ascetic has caused me to very much adore this plane, it would have to be the CAC Boomerang. For the survival of the Continent; in case planes could not be delivered, needing to be operational ASAP, therefore designed around a trainer, the trainer's power plant (parts available or able to be produced in Australia at the time), built knowing it's performance was substandard (…as maneuverable as a P-39 it was said), fielded when Australia's situation was not as dire, as they were beginning to receive replacement aircraft (March 1943); not so much when they needed them, nor quite as many as they would have liked, but none the less, before the Boomerang was entering service. Not to say that the aircraft was a poor design, it wasn't given the ingredients, it bettered the NA-50 sold to Peru in '39, in some respects; it simply never shot down any adversary fighter, not even by chance, and remained in production until the end of hostilities. Runners up in no particular order: The P-40, far too many built, as the 3rd most American produced fighter aircraft during WW2. Sub standard performance even when new, although it seems it was well liked by it pilots, and looked great with a shark mouth painted on it. Stacked up, on paper it was never better than it's rivals, except when 1st deployed by the 'Tigers' in China, but the P-40 always seemed to have something going for it. Its just that the US spent far too much time and energies on this aircraft in whole. The A6M-5, what were they thinking? Piolts needed protection, but the type was not ever intended for the weight gain. Released as an improvement to the A6M-2, this aircraft was totally outclassed by its 1st tier adversaries the F-6F, F-4U. Yes it was able to effectively deal with a P-40N, or a Boomerang, but so was the A6M-2. The PZL P.24 series fighter. Wow; fighter was an export success!! Yet by mid 1940 all had perished, out classed by every adversary, save maybe transports gliders. Stukas have claimed this aircraft on their victory lists. It's technical innovations rewarded pilots all the disadvantages of both bi-winged and mono-winged aircraft, in a single package.

The thing I enjoy most about the 'worst' fighters of WW2, as I sit comfortable in my chair, debating events of the past, is they all have wonderful folklore. Yes the 'great' ones do too, but they lack the intensity, and fun of these 'worsts'. In my flight sim games; I try my best, with countless hrs spent 'moding' .air files, to hone in on flight charistics, going as far as timing climb, roll, dive, and damage rates within the sim to get them to appear as close as possible to averaged published specs; it is just so much more fun flying a P-40C and winning against 3 or 4 Zeros than doing the same in a P-51D.

…I think this was a long enough opening letter. I'm glad to have joined. Look forward to some fun. Hope to hear from you soon.

Jon J Goldberg

A Few Screen Shots From My CFS-2 Flight Sim… >>>

 

[plan_D]

Welcome to the site.

I would like to point out that you just contradicted yourself almost throughout that entire posting. You state that the P-51 was the greatest fighter of World War II on the basis that it gives an all-round package. But then move on to wondering if the P-51 would be able to handle itself in other roles. It's not exactly an all-round package if all it can do is escort bombers to the target and back.

You remove statistics from the discussion because in the majority of cases they do not favour the P-51. And the basis of the Hurricane being the runner-up because it provided an all-round package during the Battle of Britain? But whatever the Hurricane could do, the Spitfire could do better ...even in the Battle of Britain.

And you assault the Mosquito and P-38 because they are twin-engined ...which makes them inferior how? The Mosquito and P-38 were certainly more of an all-round package than the P-51. The Mosquito suffered no increase in production need because it had little effect on the war machine, being a design of wood.

I do not understand the statement of "simply none better" for the P-51. It what aspect? That one region of escort duties? I have defended the P-51 on many occasions from the onslaught of people on here stating it's over-rated ...and, in my opinion, it was one of the best for it's achievement during the war but no way was the P-51 undisputed champion of the skies during World War II.

If I've misunderstood what you were saying. Please explain to my feeble brain. And, again, welcome to the site. Looking forward to good discussion.

By the way, mention the looks of the Mustang to back up your argument. Because it was one B-E-A-utiful plane.

 

[lesofprimus]

U know, if the P-40 had the range of the P-51, and flew in as many #'s as the -51, people would be saying the P-40 was the greatest fighter in WW2....

Maybe it was the best escort fighter...

 

[JonJGoldberg]

Thanks plan_D,
In reply…

…I should have been clearer. To clarify, what I mean by entire package >> There was no better fighter aircraft package than P-51, especially as applied by the 8th Air Force. No other aircraft could equal the P-51s knock out performance combination of power in the air, low cost to the nation's wallets that flew her. It was cost effective, it was cheaper to develop, each copy was cheaper to build, and each mission cheaper to finance, as it needed less gas for instance, than its friendly rivals, the '38, or '47. Built in large numbers, the '51 was trainable, serviceable, and able to meet adversaries on equal or better footing, most of the time. Available, expendable yet indispensable, no other single WW2 fighter affected the 'big' picture of that conflict in a more significant way, with exception, possibly, given to the Hurricane. As for the other rolls, no aircraft does everything. The P-51 was not designed at all to be a defensive fighter, no variant was constructed to deal with bomber formations, although there was a 'mud warrior' variant. In modern terms it would be an interceptor, as the F-104. But unlike the F-104 or the Fw-190, bombers were not the 'favored food'; the '51 was designed to 'deal with' fighters. This it did, did well, so well it bettered any other fighter aircraft at doing it's job during WW2 (…and it looked good doing it). It was better at defeating Fw-190s than the Fw-190 was at defeating bombers. It was better at defeating Me-109s than Me109s were at defeating bombers. Part of the reason the 190s 109s suffered bad or no gas, and or the shortage of supplies and or skilled pilots is because of the '51's contribution. The 190s 109s deserve no handicap due to this 'hardship'. Their hardships affirm, in my opinion, their inability to 'handle' their jobs/circumstance effectively.

…The major 'roll' of the '51, its reason for being; to escort bombers to from targets. It was so capable at doing this, they changed tactics from defend the bombers, to destroy the Luftwaffe. 51s still had the extra ammo to strafe. The only argument to dethroning the '51 may be; was the '51 better at defeating its circumstance, than the Hurricane was when she her pilots defended England. So what if the '38 and or Mosquito offer a more flexible mission menu. They could not, and did not turn the tide, to the degree that the '51 did. I thought this was a discussion on what was/is the best fighter of WW2; Not most flexible weapons platform, or best dog-fighter for that matter.

…I mention no statistics as I'd like the discussion to be about the outcome; not the statistic. The conclusions (my opinions) should stand on their own, I wish not to be encumbered by the bantering of statistical tit-for-tats. For example you may say, no Hurricane, no Mustang, as there would have been no British spec to replace the P-40s, no RR Merlin's for Packard to copy… Boring is the discussion where we say that one stat carries more weight than another, or is more valid than another, or should be viewed using 'this' ratio, or that mathematical twist, for example; Statistically the Hurricane's kill vs. loss ratio was better than plane 'x' but worse than plane 'y' which you said was worse than plane 'a', a type whose performance is generally considered to be on par with that of the Hurricane… blah blah blah...

…The Hurricane over the Spit! How when the Spit was/is a more capable aircraft, except when it came to 'mud fighting'? Well the Brits did not have the 6 months to build the number of Spits needed to fill the fighter roll. To me, at the time of the Battle of Britain, the Spit was the equivalent of the Me-262. It represented the best the country could offer, technically. It was the weapon of last resort. It bettered anything the enemy could muster, on a one to one basis. But that circumstance was not the reality. The brunt of the reasonablity was that of the Hurricane for England, and the Fw-190 for Germany. Not the 'glory' weapons of thier time, the Spitfire, or Me-262.

…Twin engine aircraft, during WW2, to a larger degree than is true today, simply cost too darn much to have been 'standard issue'. Even when their structure is made of non-strategic materials they still have two engines. Their pilots support staff require more training. They require more service hours, across more parts types (especially in contra-rotational types). They require more gas, support facilities in better conditions, with longer runways in more stable environments. Lots of extra effort, resource expended in order to accommodate that one extra engine. The '38 Mosquito were indeed worth the expense. They were shining examples of twin engine performance capabilities. They simply couldn't or wouldn't be built in large enough numbers to affect the war as the '51.

…What I meant by best Fighter. Miss America was not necessarily the 'prettiest' girl on the stage (…although this is, in my opinion, why there are no more Miss America pageants). She was representing American beauty as a package, not just the exterior (in theory). Best fighter represents to me the aircraft that combined it all. Able to serve dominate within its category where, when, and how called upon. In order to be able to be called 'Best Fighter' the aircraft may not be the most adaptable, or able to dominate any single or combined category subset. The Best Fighter would be the one that, as a fighter, performed its assigned objectives so well no other type could have replaced it, and in being irreplaceable, would have changed the war's outcome to the greatest degree if its type were not in service as a fighter. It's in this aspect that I nominate the '51 as best fighter of WW2, and say that there was simply none better.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Welcome Jon, but you might want to shrink down your sig a bit. It's massive.

 

[lesofprimus]

Thats not a siggy, just a pic he posted....

JG, while ur posts are informative and detailed, u seem alittle too enamoured by the P-51... Its use was severely limited to escort duties, and while it performed excellently at that role, it wasnt until the latter part of the War that it rose above all others...

And it was also fielded in great numbers, where the Americans had 60 of them escorting a bomber group against 15 Luftwaffe aircraft on intercept...

U dont seem to hold any Axis aircraft in high regard JG.... Is that from lack of information, or are u one of those propaganda soiled individuals???

 

[Nonskimmer]

Thats not a siggy, just a pic he posted....

Ah, so it is. In that case, ignore what I said. Most people do.

 

[plan_D]

I don't ignore you, NS, I just attack what you say instead.

And if the P-51 was never invented, the P-38 would have comfortably filled the gap. There was nowhere more secure for escort fighters over Europe than Britain.