Best Fighter III

[plan_D]

Had the Spitfire been the sole interceptor of the Battle of Britain it would have dealt with the Luftwaffe more efficiently that the Hurricane. Let's just say that the Spitfire would have been in lesser numbers than the combination of the Hurricane and Spitfire. They both began life in 1936 and were put into production not so soon after.

In reality, what was it? Thirty-two Hurricane squadrons and nineteen Spitfire squadrons? That's fifty-one squadrons. Let's just say if only the Spitfire had been built from 1937 onwards there were 45 squadrons, the Spitfire was a more efficient killing machine and could make up the loss in squadron strength. Hell, who's to say the RAF wouldn't send over four Spitfire squadrons (instead of Hurricane squadrons) to France which would cause more damage? And the Luftwaffe would have been no bigger ...they were producing planes at a leisurely rate, as a opposed to the war rate of Great Britain.

If we're being specific of theatre. What could have replaced the Zero in 1941 for the Pacific? What could have replaced the La-7 on the Eastern Front? What could have replaced the Spitfire in Africa? What could have replaced the Fw-190A in 1942, France?

I think we're all agreed that the P-51 was a remarkable machine and was probably the best escort fighter of the war from an economic point of view. It was above average and cheap.

And I think you're being a bit excessive with the Panther versus Tiger production. The Panther was still complicated and the most accepted figure is 2:1, but I will give 3:1. Ten for one, never use, it's over the top.

 

[helmitsmit]

In combat the early Spitfires weren't a steady gun platform that is also why the Hurricane shot down more planes. It was easy to repair it could take more battle damage it was easier to fly takeoff and landing wise. It's gun were more concentrated. So maybe the spitfire would have struggled to stop the germans

 

[cheddar cheese]

It shot down more planes because:
a) It was tougher, and so went after the bombers, and there are more bombers than fighters
b) There were more of them.

 

[plan_D]

The reason it shot down more overall was the simple fact that there were more Hurricanes than there were Spitfires.

The Spitfires gun issue wasn't actually an issue. The Spitfire was sent after enemy fighters which were much more agile than bombers, the accuracy of the Spitfire's weapons was obviously not a problem.

The strength of the Hurricane saved a lot of pilots from death but it would not affect the ability of the Spitfire to bring down enemy bombers. After all, the Spitfire was first and foremost an interceptor from design.

Jabberwocky provided statistics that show the Spitfire on a squadron to squadron basis was a more successful plane against the enemy.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Spitfire Squadrons in the Battle of Britain

No 19 Sqn
No 41 Sqn
No 54 Sqn
No 64 Sqn
No 65 Sqn
No 66 Sqn
No 72 Sqn
No 74 Sqn
No 92 Sqn
No 152 Sqn
No 222 Sqn
No 266 Sqn
No 602 Sqn
No 603 Sqn
No 610 Sqn
No 611 Sqn
No 612 Sqn
No. 421 Flight

Total of 17 squadrons and 1 flight

Hurricane Squadrons in the Battle of Britain:

No 1 Sqn
No 3 Sqn
No 17 Sqn
No 32 Sqn
No 43 Sqn
No 46 Sqn
No 56 Sqn
No 73 Sqn
No 79 Sqn
No 85 Sqn
No 87 Sqn
No 111 Sqn
No 145 Sqn
No 151 Sqn
No 213 Sqn
No 229 Sqn
No 232 Sqn
No 234 Sqn
No 238 Sqn
No 242 Sqn
No 245 Sqn
No 249 Sqn
No 253 Sqn
No 257 Sqn
No 263 Sqn
No 302 Sqn
No 303 Sqn
No 310 Sqn
No 312 Sqn
No 501 Sqn
No 504 Sqn
No 601 Sqn
No 605 Sqn
No 607 Sqn
No 615 Sqn
No 1 (RACF) Sqn
No 421 Flight
No 422 flight

Total of 36 squadrons and 2 flights.

 

[plan_D]

I've seen loads of different numbers ...but since you provided the actual squadrons ..it seems much more believable.

 

[helmitsmit]

If supermarine were as big the hawker company at that time it could have produced the spitfire quicker because there were problems with the initial production.

It was more complicated than the Hurricane.
The other thing is that without the Hurricane the R.A.F would have made more companies produce more spitfires quicker. Or they would have used the Miles M.20.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the BoB was pretty much over by the time the M.20 was really ready........

 

[JonJGoldberg]

…Sorry fellows, during the week, I usually don't have time to 'play'. I forgot to thank FLYBOY for his response, thanks. Good stuff on LeVier. He had his own special 'one-of' P-38, that he used during his tour, I saw a picture once or twice, extended greenhouse, for the guest pilots, and some 'stuff' on the wings...

Let's see what I missed, from my last post…

Jabberwocky:
A) "The Hurricane wasn't the supreme fighter system. It was merely what Britain had available, in quantity, to fight in its early battles during WW2."
My Reply >>>
'Interceptor Monoplane' trials in 1936 (in March of the same year, Supermarine Model 300, the Spit flew) showed that revisions to the canopy, landing gear, control layout were all that were needed in order for the Hurricane, as it was to be known, to be accepted, and produced. June '36 600 were ordered (only 310 Spits were ordered), the name 'Hurricane' was given. No.111 squadron was equipped by the end of '37, and No.3, No.56 by the end of '38 (Spits were 1st equipping No.19 squadron in mid 1938). The speed of delivery happened due to Hawker's confidence of their 'new' design; the Hawker Siddeley board issuing a directive, before any orders were secured, to 'tool up' to build 1,000 Hurricanes at Kingston, a NEW FACTORY at Langley (Supermarine doing no such thing, until the start of hostilities).

B) "In the Battle of Britain 18 Spitfire squadrons claimed some 1,167 kills, which was only 477 fewer enemy aircraft than was claimed by slightly more than double their number of Hurricane squadrons… This makes a Spitfire squadron around 40% more effective than the average Hurricane squadron, claiming an extra 18 aircraft per squadron."
My Reply >>>
According to the records at my disposal, and 'paraphrased' (I just love stats); 1715 Hurricanes served during the BoB, outnumbering the combined total of all other aircraft that served in the BoB. British aircraft production numbers by 7 August 1940 account that no fewer than 2,309 Hurricanes had been delivered; compared with 1,383 Spitfires, equipping 32 squadrons, compared with 18.5 Spitfire squadrons. The Hurricane was markedly inferior in terms of speed and climb. However, the Hurricane was a robust, maneuverable aircraft capable of sustaining fearsome combat damage before write-off; and unlike the Spitfire, it was a wholly operational, go-anywhere do-anything fighter by July 1940. It is estimated that Hurricane pilots were credited with four-fifths of all enemy aircraft destroyed in the period July-October 1940.Now something's gotta be out-of-wack with somebody's numbers…
The 1167 kills from Spits, added to the 1644 you say the Hurricane pilots deserve, we get 2811. Total Aircraft losses for the Battle of Britain, between July 10 and October 31 1940: Luftwaffe losses 1,887, of which 873 were fighters (RAF lost 1,023 fighter aircraft to all causes). Further, review the Brits daily reports (available at http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/index.html) you will find the daily strength of Spits averaged 225 to 260, and Hurricanes 350 to 410.This equates to a 35/64 split of Spits to Hurries, on average (worst case days being 1/3 Spit to Hurricane) does not account for the credit given the Hurricanes of 80% of all downed aircraft (1/4 Spit to Hurricane, best case, assuming AA fire accounted for 0 aircraft; Don't you love stats?).

C)" With the P-51, apart from range and high speed cruise there is little that it could do other fighters couldn't do considerably better. If you look at the performance categories where a fighter is judged against its opponents; speed, roll, climb, dive, zoom climb, firepower, turn, handling, control harmony it often comes up wanting. The Fw-190A serise, 190D serise, Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, P-47D, even the La-7 and Yak-3 even the venerable 109K, all matched or exceeded the P-51 in many performance categories."
My Reply >>>
According to the data I posted, most other American fighters offered equal or better performance in any category or set of categories listed, save one; Money. This allowed a government, not desperate for its own survival, to acquire, or produce enough of these things, quickly enough, and apply them in manners to prevent an enemy's effective response. If the enemy is not able to respond, well, then you are the best. The Fw-190 was not able to respond to the introduction of the 'Pony'.

D) Lastly Jabberwocky posted some Hurricane Squadron tables.
My Reply >>>
OK. And…

evangilder:
A) "Okay, I have to look at this from another angle. Let's take a look at the top USAAF aces by theater: PTO
Top five aces:
Richard Bong, P-38, 40 kills…
You have to get to 9 and 10, Hill and Older to get to any P-51s, and these guys also had kills in the P-40…"
My Reply >>>
We are not talking about where the '51 had at best, I agree adequate service. I think we are trying to establish the best fighter of the war, not a theater, for one 'approach' pun intended. As for another, I don't think there are any F-6Fs nor Ki-84 'Frank' on the ETO sheet, nor will you find 'Whirlwind', 'Tempest' nor FW-190 stats for the PTO. The '38 has more Japanese aircraft to its credit than European. The '47s did well, but offered little a '38, or F4U didn't, couldn't... Where are we going with this?

B) "…If the P-51 was "clearly" the best definitive fighter, how come the top American ace of any theater was not flying the P-51?? I like the P-51, but I would not consider it the best fighter of WWII. For long range escort, it was good, but as an air superiority fighter I would rank it fair."
My Reply >>>
In this argument, you use the mount of the pilot, saying that the '51 appears lower in the rankings than does the appearance of other types. Your point seems valid, except, well; the '51 was introduced later than the other types, when there were more pilots, on both sides, in Europe anyway, but many, many more Allied pilots. The Axis gained less so proportionately. So a '51 pilot, a new pilot at that (not to say that the Axis pilots weren't green), would have more competition, proportionately, than those flying other types, hence better survival rates, but less time to acquire their 'kills', if the pilot's only mount was the 'pony'. I may therefore argue that if any made the list at all, it serves as cement to my points. But that would be silly. Fact is, the '51 did clear the sky. Admittedly it wasn't the only reason. …But wow, what a difference the '51 made. I think what you and most others are doing is romancing the performance stats, as opposed to what happened in fact. Although battles in the air are usually visualized as a one-on-one dance they are not. Two F4Fs working as a team were no doubt more effective than two independently acting Zeros. Most (certainly not all) confrontations between the types resulted in stalemate, or victories to the Wildcat pilots, as evidenced by history. Teamwork the effects of the proper application of tactics to overcome performance shortfalls, or the opening of a factory purely on the belief that the 'product' will be sold are some of the 'human' factors not contained within the performance sheets (stats), and mostly forgotten, no matter the relevance, during the romance of their study.

plan_D:
A) "…Let's just say if only the Spitfire had been built from 1937 onwards there were 45 squadrons, the Spitfire was a more efficient killing machine and could make up the loss in squadron strength. Hell, who's to say the RAF wouldn't send over four Spitfire squadrons (instead of Hurricane squadrons) to France which would cause more damage? And the Luftwaffe would have been no bigger ...they were producing planes at a leisurely rate, as a opposed to the war rate of Great Britain."
My Reply >>>
Let's just say… Ok I'll play. The soul reason for the number of Hurricanes built, and their cadence of delivery being as rapid as it was, was due to, as mentioned above, Hawker's confidence of their 'new' design leading to the Hawker Siddeley board to issue an order to 'tool up' to build 1,000 at Kingston, build a NEW FACTORY at Langley, before any order for the new aircraft was placed. Supermarine had no such faith, as they missed the 'Interceptor Monoplane' trials, requiring the Brits to draft a specification specifically to justify the Spits existence, and purchase, other than it's remarkable, for the time, performance. Their construction delivery cadence was 'average' for the time. Anyway, point being, the Human factors involved would not allow your theoretical numbers of Spits to exist, as telling Hawker to switch from Hurricanes to Spits would have involved, I believe history confirms, a much bigger investment than just telling them to do so. So, following the switch, under the best of circumstances, keeping the time-line intact as to not add yet another factor, Hawker delivers would be at best, 90% of Supermarine's 1383, by August 1940. I use this date because the planes had to be made before the BoB in order to have served in the BoB. I discount Hawkers delivery of Spits against Supermarines delivery, instead of their production of Hurricanes, because I believe what I wrote above, and therefore I believe the Langley factory would not have opened when it did, and additionally Hawker would need to retool retrain workers. Enough of that tangent; In order for there to have been 1715 Hurricanes to take part in the BoB, the target number of our replacement Spits, Hawker had to build by August 1940, 2,309. The New Hawker will build 1245 Spits instead. Keeping the proportions intact (giving an edge to the Spit, as for 'NOW' only, I will concede a better attrition rate for the Spit) this will yield say 75% of the 1300 Spits built, leaving 975 Spits in service for the BoB (ruff numbers). Now you might say that this 740 (ruff numbers) less Spits than Hurries is a number that fits your theory. But let's take another look at those 'awful' specs. On any given day, those 1383 Spits yielded say 260 aircraft in service, or 20% (ruff number). The 1715 Hurricanes yielded lets say 375, or 22% (ruff number). So we are really replacing 375 easier to maintain, keep flying despite their inferior performance Hurricanes, on any given day, with 195 magnificently performing Spits. Now you're the British commander faced with intercepting German flights coming at you, except the 180 aircraft you had in the air, flying 24 Hr top cover, as most of your pilots aircraft are on the ground are being serviced from the last go-round could not get to altitude/destination in time, those 180 aircraft are simply not there. …But hey, at least the ones that remain, on the ground being serviced, the new ones being built in the surviving factories in this scenario, are all magnificently performing Spits… As for production rates, it wasn't until 1940 that British production surpassed that of Germany. 1939 end of year aircraft production totals for Germany (8295) were slightly higher than those of Britain (7940). So, at the time, a delay, as if the Brits could have delayed the BoB, to increase Spit numbers would not serve the Brits, on paper; the weather, and many other incalculable human factors would enter if this tangent were explored further.

B) "If we're being specific of theatre…."
My Reply >>>
We (I) are (am) not.

C) "I think we're all agreed that the P-51 was a remarkable machine and was probably the best escort fighter of the war from an economic point of view. It was above average and cheap. …."
My Reply >>>
…Hey plan_D, thanks for the gumball! No really at least it's a start.

D) "And I think you're being a bit excessive with the Panther versus Tiger production. The Panther was still complicated and the most accepted figure is 2:1, but I will give 3:1. Ten for one, never use, it's over the top."
My Reply >>>
I was 'carried away' by the moment. But you got the point?! … I think your figure is low, I'll look into it for a goof.

helmitsmit cheddar cheese:
My Reply >>>
I'm not going to quote you; I thank you for your contributions. May I add that the Hurricane was the interceptor of choice; Spits being dispatched when Hurricanes could not, or were unable to reach the objective first, or whenever the interception exploited the Spits performance advantages, as opposed to its short-comings, relative to the Hurricane? …Thanks.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

...Correction to the site address containing the RAFs BoB daily reports. You will find them here: http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/calendar.html

 

[evangilder]

evangilder:
A) "Okay, I have to look at this from another angle. Let's take a look at the top USAAF aces by theater: PTO
Top five aces:
Richard Bong, P-38, 40 kills…
You have to get to 9 and 10, Hill and Older to get to any P-51s, and these guys also had kills in the P-40…"
My Reply >>>
We are not talking about where the '51 had at best, I agree adequate service. I think we are trying to establish the best fighter of the war, not a theater, for one 'approach' pun intended. As for another, I don't think there are any F-6Fs nor Ki-84 'Frank' on the ETO sheet, nor will you find 'Whirlwind', 'Tempest' nor FW-190 stats for the PTO. The '38 has more Japanese aircraft to its credit than European. The '47s did well, but offered little a '38, or F4U didn't, couldn't... Where are we going with this?

I was showing aces per theater to show each operational area and what aircraft had the top aces. I could have made it for the whole war, but I broke it down for more info. Where are you going with your reply?

B) "…If the P-51 was "clearly" the best definitive fighter, how come the top American ace of any theater was not flying the P-51?? I like the P-51, but I would not consider it the best fighter of WWII. For long range escort, it was good, but as an air superiority fighter I would rank it fair."
My Reply >>>
In this argument, you use the mount of the pilot, saying that the '51 appears lower in the rankings than does the appearance of other types. Your point seems valid, except, well; the '51 was introduced later than the other types, when there were more pilots, on both sides, in Europe anyway, but many, many more Allied pilots. The Axis gained less so proportionately. So a '51 pilot, a new pilot at that (not to say that the Axis pilots weren't green), would have more competition, proportionately, than those flying other types, hence better survival rates, but less time to acquire their 'kills', if the pilot's only mount was the 'pony'. I may therefore argue that if any made the list at all, it serves as cement to my points. But that would be silly. Fact is, the '51 did clear the sky. Admittedly it wasn't the only reason. …But wow, what a difference the '51 made. I think what you and most others are doing is romancing the performance stats, as opposed to what happened in fact. Although battles in the air are usually visualized as a one-on-one dance they are not. Two F4Fs working as a team were no doubt more effective than two independently acting Zeros. Most (certainly not all) confrontations between the types resulted in stalemate, or victories to the Wildcat pilots, as evidenced by history. Teamwork the effects of the proper application of tactics to overcome performance shortfalls, or the opening of a factory purely on the belief that the 'product' will be sold are some of the 'human' factors not contained within the performance sheets (stats), and mostly forgotten, no matter the relevance, during the romance of their study.

Firstly, the only reason the P-51 "cleared the sky" was because the outnumbered the enemy. They are a good plane, but not a great plane. Your statement I think what you and most others are doing is romancing the performance stats, as opposed to what happened in fact. proves that you have NO idea where I get my info. Spend a little time reading on this site to find out. I am not going to hand it to you after a comment like that. If the most others of that comment are meant for folks here, again, you better read up on them as well.

I am quite aware of how battles were conducted and it was rarely, if ever just one on one. Again, you need to read a bit more on this site before you make comments like that one, as most of us here have done a fair bit of reading on this subject as well as talk to the actual people who flew these planes. Do not make assumptions here that we know nothing. I don't give a rat's ass about the "romantic" hollywood bullcrap. I am only interested in facts.

Look at both sides of the war and talk with some of the vets. Again, I like the Mustang, but I would never consider it the best fighter of the war. It just wasn't the best. I am sure you will find others agree, all of which are well informed.

 

[syscom3]

I think his argument was the P51's in the Pacific arrived so late in the war, that there wasn't many Japanese planes to shoot at. In the ETO, the P51's were not in force untill Q2 of 1944, in which the Luftwaffee had begun its relative decline againt the Allies. While more and more Mustangs were being deployed, fewer and fewer German fighters were taking flight. Think about it for Q4 of 1944. A German pilot taking off on a sortie would be guarenteed to find an American plane somewhere. The American P51 pilot would be among several hundred fighters, MAYBE in the area where a smaller number of German fighters are operating, on the rare day they did come up to fight.

It was good for the bombers, but bad for the fighter pilots who wanted to add to their score.

Ive always figured that the best fighter in the war is the one that rated high in several catagories. The P51 wasnt the best in all, but was good in enough catagories to overall be the best.

 

[wmaxt]

I think his argument was the P51's in the Pacific arrived so late in the war, that there wasn't many Japanese planes to shoot at. In the ETO, the P51's were not in force untill Q2 of 1944, in which the Luftwaffee had begun its relative decline againt the Allies. While more and more Mustangs were being deployed, fewer and fewer German fighters were taking flight. Think about it for Q4 of 1944. A German pilot taking off on a sortie would be guarenteed to find an American plane somewhere. The American P51 pilot would be among several hundred fighters, MAYBE in the area where a smaller number of German fighters are operating, on the rare day they did come up to fight.

It was good for the bombers, but bad for the fighter pilots who wanted to add to their score.

Ive always figured that the best fighter in the war is the one that rated high in several catagories. The P51 wasnt the best in all, but was good in enough catagories to overall be the best.

The P-51 is a 90% fighter, period.
1. The performance of the Mustang was so average that it had a 3 month lapse in production prior to the Merlin and did not exceed P-38 production until March' 44.
2. Even as an escort it wasn't the best, just able to fly further than other aircraft into Germany (the 8th limited the drop tank size for the P-38s to keep it that way.
3. Its dominance, numbers wise in the ETO was not due to its performance according to Doolittle who made the decision to go with the P-51.
4. Performance wise the P-38L was better in virtualy every catagory, the one place it didn't was a second source when it was needed.
5. The P-51 AAF 'advocate' had a father in congress.
6. Timing favorable to the AAF brass to get them out of the "Self Escort" trap they had staked the future of America on.
7. The P-38 was the requested preference everywhere else in the world.

The P-51 was cheap, adequate, and numerous, It also got the press thats all.

The YIPPEE P-38 was a standard J model P-38. It was P-38 #5,000 and painted red, no modifications were made to this aircraft.

wmaxt

 

[JonJGoldberg]

Hello again…,
Wow looks like I rustled some feathers…

evangilder; you seem to have taken a reply of mine as a personal attack. It wasn't meant that way. To answer you:

In a posting to DerAdlerIstGelandet, you may find below within item 6 to Wmaxt, I've already addressed the point you are trying to make, so I interpreted your posting this way; "Look, the '51 wasn't great, it's on the Ace lists, and when its there, other aircraft are mentioned. These other planes did the 'fighter' thing better than the P-51, look at when, how many times they are mentioned. Now look at when and how many times you see the '51." I even wrote that I didn't completely understand your point by asking "Where are we going with this?" But you didn't understand me either. So, please allow me to rephrase, as I see your point a little clearer, now, can make mine more easily understood.

The Me-262 was a great (my opinion) plane, when introduced. Performance far better, in most respects that a German pilot at the time, might consider important (OK it was no aerobat, but you could step on the gas, { this type got gas} and leave, had serious firepower {although slow firing rate}, other aircraft to cover your butt while taking off landing {not that every other plane ever built couldn't use this 'help', the Me-262 though has this rep.}), than most other fighters he might have happened to qualify for, or be in the circumstance to fly. Yet this aircraft, as well as, for example, the Ta-152 will be as rare if not rarer to find on the German Ace list as the P-51 on the American Ace lists. To further establish my point, you will not find many Ki-84s on the Japanese Ace lists, nor Tempest fighters on the British, or Mc-205Vs on the Italian lists. I believe, though I'm not 1000% sure, your argument would lead us to the Me-109, as the mount of the most Aces of the war. It was produced in the most numbers, served the longest, and was perhaps the most 'mainstream' or common representation of 'a' fighter aircraft of the WW2, yet I do not believe this aircraft was 'the' fighter of the war, but I'll listen further…

With regard to there being more Ponys in the sky than "the enemy" that is not so. There were more Allied aircraft in the sky, some of them being P-51s. Production numbers for the P-51 (15,576 with some of that number being built after the war) are less than those of the Me-109 (G-type production alone was about 23,000, of which 14,000 were built in '44 alone {Now I'll bet there are more '51s on the Ace lists than these 14,000 '109Gs}), Fw-190 (19,424). As for 'friendly' adversaries to the 'best fighter crown' the Spit and Jug come to mind as being built in greater numbers than the Pony. Anyway, if there were more Allied fighters in the sky, than Axis fighters, was this not a direct result of them being 'taken out'? After all, Germany didn't build this many planes to leave them sit. They did field them, some of them, most of them, pilot shortage, gas shortage not withstanding; didn't they?

With regard to the 'romancing the stats' stuff: What else can it be? Not in the "Hollywood" sense, but in the stance, in general, that I see in our 'friendly' exchanges. For example, I previously wrote a reply with regard to numbers of fighter aircraft produced and the appointment of the P-51 as best fighter 'by volume' in an exchange with Lesofprimus. Similarly, you know the numbers of '51s made, so why is it that you rebut my 'bantering' with, "Firstly, the only reason the P-51 "cleared the sky" was because the(y) outnumbered the enemy." …But I'll answer you, as this is a 'friendly' exchange, I'm in no way personally attacking you; who am I, been a member for less than 2 weeks…
The '51, by itself, did NOT outnumber Me-109s, nor FW-190s by type, much less combined, unless they were destroyed by other means before the '51 got there. Well even if that were so, with 14,000 fresh Me-109s produced in '44 alone, this single type of German aircraft, fighter aircraft too boot, would have, should have been able to make an appearance in greater number than '51s (not the entire Allied air forces) on any given day.

Related banter…
• The '51 was able to fly 6 hours, with time and ability to be competitive in aerial combat. What would the '51s performance been had it been designed to fight locally, as the Fw-190, or the Spit. Without say the internal volume and weight required to fit lets go for the aft fuel tank or better yet, designed with a 500 mile rage on internal tanks.
• If the Fw-190D were modified to serve a mission envelope similar to the Mustang's, how would its performance have fared?
• Why hasn't the Martin Baker's M.B.5 been nominated? 1st flown May 23, 1944, with a top speed of 460 MPH, this aircraft failed to secure a contract. However, to all that logged flight time in her, she was the best handling aircraft they had flown. Till this day, whenever I find information about this plane I read about how well it was received by its test guest pilots.
• Why do I not see the Ki-84 anywhere? Although at 388 mph top speed it was slower than a '51, or '47 but competitive with the CAT, man this toy had 'moves'. If bombing (here we go again) hadn't caused production quality issues Allied fighter pilots let a good pilot escape harm every now then to mount this thing… (You see how easily we all 'romance' the stats)
More seriously, maybe we can 'define' best fighter aircraft of WW2 a bit more clearly, for individuals as myself ('clearly' a pain in the…). I'd like to know how many of them had to be built; How many production units constitute a 'fair production maximum'; during what time frame; Did they have to be operational; is a mock up OK, or perhaps just paper; How many theaters did they have to operate within; for how long; what is the earliest date to be considered; the latest date; speaking of dates (not blond, or brunette), would that be 1st flight, or in field…

syscom3; Thanks for the help.

Wmaxt:
"The P-51 is a 90% fighter, period."
My Reply >>>
You are entitled. I suppose you derive that from what you go on further to point out. Additionally, why must you, and others berate, or trample the '51 in order to bring the aircraft you'd prefer I'd choose praise. I have not done that, not even once.

"1. The performance of the Mustang was so average that it had a 3 month lapse in production prior to the Merlin and did not exceed P-38 production until March' 44."
My Reply >>>
You mean Apache, right. As to it's 'average' performance, as compared to a fighter maybe, but not as compared to other purpose built mud fighters (attack aircraft), it's intended roll. Even then its dive low altitude performance was exceptional. If you mean the P-51A, well OK I loose. It was in my opinion, not such a good aircraft. Oh well, I won't mention those, what were they, P-322s, outside this forum anyways. Lots of Aces flew those 'Fork Tailed Devils' too huh. Every 'family' has at least one of those. As for the production lapse, 3-months to re-tool and open a new plant is not bad. As to the production number, cadence as compared to an aircraft which started production in mid 1940, I don't understand. That a full two years before the A-36A.

"2. Even as an escort it wasn't the best, just able to fly further than other aircraft into Germany (the 8th limited the drop tank size for the P-38s to keep it that way."
My Reply >>>
I'm going to go backwards here… As I've posted, the '38 was experiencing engine service problems in Europe it was not experiencing in other theaters. Drop tank and ordence size was limited due to those engine problems. Being able to fly long distances, enguage the enemy, fly a long distance home, if you were an Allied fighter in Europe, was the ticket to the 'Ball'. So, if you are able to fly further, your in; if not you out. Not my rule.

"3. Its dominance, numbers wise in the ETO was not due to its performance according to Doolittle who made the decision to go with the P-51."
My Reply >>>
That's not entirely true. As I've posted, the Mustang was, OK, cheap. And it preformed. So Doolittle considered Henry Fords approach. Give every pilot a Pony, and at least they'll have a chance to dance at the 'Ball'. We'll keep the '38s the Jugs if this thing don't pan out, but pound for dollar, the Pony is the best choice. The preceding is in no way a Doolittle quote, simply my interpretation of the Doolittle decision.

"4. Performance wise the P-38L was better in virtualy every catagory, the one place it didn't was a second source when it was needed."
My Reply >>>
Huh, I don't understand…

"5. The P-51 AAF 'advocate' had a father in congress."
My Reply >>>
Lots of scandals during the war; It's an American tradition. Anyway, I recognize, and have written about what doesn't appear in the specs, and how much what I call 'human' factors matter in the big picture. But 'circumstance' is circumstance. Even if the Mustang was chosen for _____ singularly due the '51's advocate's father being in Congress, it happened that way. Alas, however, here too, I do not really know what you mean.

"6. Timing favorable to the AAF brass to get them out of the "Self Escort" trap they had staked the future of America on."
My Reply >>>
There is a saying fitting this occasion, not my own. "In love war timing is everything." As I've posted, way before, reletive to my tenure evangilder posted his comments, … DerAdlerIstGelandet,
I see we must agree to disagree. I feel the '51 was a good fighter escort. So good at being an escort it was the single best fighter of WW2. I agree, it may not have been as capable at anything else. But what the Allies needed, more than any other 'fighter type' in order to see their strategies succeed, was a proper fighter escort. They didn't need an aerobat, or multi-roll fighter, as badly as an escort. Until the Mustang, potential could be found in the '38, and '47, but both were expensive, thirsty aircraft. The '47 was less expensive thirsty than the '38, and on the 'scene' before the '51 in RR/Packard duds, was therefore built in the greatest number. Only a handful of the 8ths pilots retained the '47 when offered. I believe only one squad refused to switch to '51s. '47s '38s can credit more 'top' aces than '51s. But it could also be argued that the '51 came later, Americans were rotating pilots more frequently then. I hate stats.

"7. The P-38 was the requested preference everywhere else in the world."
My Reply >>>
From when to when; by whom? Doesn't everyone have a 'request' story? During mission 'X', plane 'Y' was chosen to… Yes, I admit the Yamamoto story is the best, but dare I mention that 'romance' thing… nah, rather, that true Yamamoto story hardly constitutes… all over the world.

"The P-51 was cheap, adequate, and numerous, It also got the press thats all."
My Reply >>>
…As I've posted… 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.

 

[lesofprimus]

Dude, ur forgetting the fact that alot/most of the fighter squadrons and groups transistioned into the P-51 by wars end, and that even though the Bf-109 was produced in such numbers, there wasnt the fuel or manpower to put aloft as many kites as the Allies and their packs of P-51s...

Quite simply, there would be 8x -109s intercepting a bomber group over Brest, and they'd be bounced by 25x P-51s from altitude......

U could have 25 Hurricanes bounce 8 109's and still manage to down half of the interceptors...

And no one here is saying the Mustang wasnt a hell of a plane....

 

[JonJGoldberg]

lesofprimus, Sir, for the umteenth time... As posted directly above your post... so I'm not forgetting... "...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. "

 

[JonJGoldberg]

...if your implying that the 8ths fighter missions were easy, my my this is not the site I thought it was. Lots of deaths during this easily manageable scenario you paint.

You know it just dawned on me... If you think that Germany, while losing the war figured, hey, lets build 14,000 109s for fun, was the reality, I'm wasting my time here.

Can someone help me out here?

 

[lesofprimus]

It aint about hardships pal, its a simple fact of #'s.... If the Germans were able to field an equal number of Fw-190's as the P-51's, there wouldnt be all this talk...

The P-51 was an escort fighter, and proved itself as the best in that catagory, one of the factors contributing to this is the numbers in which they were sortied....

Keep on making huge posts.... It doesnt change the fact that there were better fighters in the air than ur beloved Mustang.... It all comes down to "Your" definition of what is best...

My definition of "The Best" is quite similar to 75% of this board... Ur in the 25% that over-analyze a planes statistics and look past the air to air combat facts, and thats just fine and dandy...

But dont sit there and try and convince the un-impressed with ur Mustang.... It aint gonna wash.... Not here....

U dont actually think this is the first time we have gone over "The Best" here, do u??? This has be hashed and rehashed....

And ur last statement,

Their hardships affirm, in my opinion, their inability to 'handle' their jobs/circumstance effectively. "

is a complete joke....

 

[JonJGoldberg]

lesofprimus, once again, as posted right above... "More seriously, maybe we can 'define' best fighter aircraft of WW2 a bit more clearly, for individuals as myself ('clearly' a pain in the…). I'd like to know how many of them had to be built; How many production units constitute a 'fair production maximum'; during what time frame; Did they have to be operational; is a mock up OK, or perhaps just paper; How many theaters did they have to operate within; for how long; what is the earliest date to be considered; the latest date; speaking of dates (not blond, or brunette), would that be 1st flight, or in field… "

Anyway, thanks for yor thoughtful insite. As for the joke part, your inability to respond past that of one attending grade school is waht is funny to me. I know, as thats the level of education I attained. However, I grew past that.

 

[lesofprimus]

...if your implying that the 8ths fighter missions were easy

Are u for real??? U know, for a New Yoker, ur giving me a bad rap.... There were no easy fighter missions..... But a fact is a fact.... When u go up with 20 of ur buddies, and 4 Fw-190's show up to tackle u, u have alot better chance of surviving the engagement than those poor Luftwaffe boys, who pretty much knew they were going to die.... Sure sounds to me like ur implying the Luftwaffe had it reaaal easy in the skies over Germany....

I'm wasting my time here.

my my this is not the site I thought it was.

Can someone help me out here?

Yea I can.... The exit door is on ur right... Dont let it kick u in the ass on the way out....