Best Fighter III

[davparlr]

I am afraid many of us have allowed valuable history to slip through our hands and we are left arguing about things we will never know.

 

[davparlr]

Here is an interesting site on aircraft comparisons. It is a Russian site and reflects testing done by the Russians in comparison of German aircraft recovered during and after the war to their planes. Included are lend-lease planes which includes the P-47 and spitfire. I suspect their test are as suspect as some have said the post-war British were. According to them, the Russian planes wins hands down. Still interesting.

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/index.html

By the way, the Russians are big into the Great Patriotic War history and have some great sites with pictures of battlefield fortifications involved in the Russo-Finnish war and battles around St. Petersburg. One sites shows a bridgehead of about one square mile where 250,000 men died in three years. Spent and live munitions still abound. If any one is interested let me know.

 

[lesofprimus]

Pappy was a real character who fed off of the people around him.... He really did think he was that good....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thanks for the link.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Pappy was a real character who fed off of the people around him.... He really did think he was that good....

I think I mentioned to you once Dan, me ex father in law ran a bowling alley in Tolucal Lake CA - Boyington and his wife used to bowl there every Friday night - a few times "things got out of hand." Boyington gave my ex-father in law an autograph copy of "Baa Baa Black Sheep" - first edition....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Wow.

I used to watch that show when I was a kid and I just bought the DVD of the first season.

 

[lesofprimus]

The show was a farce factually, but still entertaining.... Everyone knows that Pappy was a consumate liar right???

edit: And yea Joe, u metioned that before.... Typical Pappy....

 

[SpitTrop]

"German aircraft design was ahead in 1939.....and 1945". Really? So how come they couldn't cope with even a narrow piece of water like the English Channel! Maybe their designers forgot to allow factors to increase range?
What about their routinley inferior bombers (exception; Ju-88), and the Ju-87ground attack aircraft that had no replacement despite having a fixed undercarriage!
The Spitfire proved a far better design to upgrade than the Bf109 too. Spitfires just got better, 109's, well they didn't!
The Fw190 was awesome when it was first released, but the Spitfire was upgraded succesfully, in the meantime the Typhoon proved good at chasing down that particular bogey. Later Mark Spits coped with the Fw190A series without any problem.
Certainly they got a couple of good jets up and flying, but when it came to piston-engine design, then the late Mark Spits (X1V-XV1), plus the Tempest were more than a match for the Fw190D series. Okay so the Ta152 was in the pipeline, but the RAF hadn't stopped with its fighters either, the Tempest design was being improved too you know (Fury). We had the Meteor jet operational well before war's end as well.
Yes, the Luftwaffe had some sexy projects at wars end, many just on paper, others barely started flying, we can't really comment on whether these would have been successful or not. I notice that whenever people talk about these "Luftwaffe 46" planes, they always do so without taking into account what the allies would have flown against them!

 

[davparlr]

WWII, as with most wars, was an amazing technology leap. In only seven years, aircraft went from not much more than biplanes (even some of them participated) to jet and rocket powered planes. The different types of aircraft that was developed was stunning. Airplanes were designed, built and flew in months. The side that is perceived to be at a disadvantage usually is the most creative, the side with the advantage tends to be Conservative or reactive. After WWI, Germany was limited in its military growth so it spent it effort in tactics and weapons quality and as a result, was significantly ahead in tactical warfare theory and application (but behind in strategic theory and application). With initial success, Germany put technology on a lower burner (attrition replacement was given a priority) and projects like jet power was let to wander. The Allies at this time, after years of ambivalence over the military, struggled hard to catch up (some technology such as the spit and some tanks were equivalent but in insufficient numbers). After the allies gained the advantage, an increasingly desperate Germany turned again to technology to save them. The allies, with more men and material, emphasized attrition replacement and applied statistical theory to warfare (if I build twice as many tanks that are half as good as the enemy, I will win). This led to things like the Sherman tank, which was not even half the capability of the enemy but just swamped them in numbers. The theory works, its just bloody. The allies at this time was strictly reactive and built tons of producible, and capable, aircraft. When the jet appeared, the allied reacted. When the V-1 appeared, they reacted, etc.

Mathematical theory won.

After all this baloney, the point is, there is no argument for the allies being ahead of Germany in areas or aerodynamic theory and aircraft and missile design at the end of the war. All allied nations changed their aircraft and missile (if they had any) designs to accommodate the information captured from the Germans. Had the allies been at a disadvantage, the reverse would have been true. From my perspective, the technological levels of the allies and axis was equivalent with only the forces of war and idiotic leaders affecting the military machine capabilities.

Sorry about the long winded entry

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

no i think you raise some very interesting points, and i agree the germans did tend to over-engineer everything...........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

"Really? So how come they couldn't cope with even a narrow piece of water like the English Channel!

and

The Spitfire proved a far better design to upgrade than the Bf109 too. Spitfires just got better, 109's, well they didn't!

Umm the Luftwaffe fighters did not have a problem with the English Channel. They did not lose the BoB because the Bf-109s could not handle the Spitfires, they lost it because of the change in stratagy. Its simple history.

And the Bf-109's not getting better is a false myth also. sure they traded a little in there maneuverability with the gained weight, but a Bf-109G or K could still tangle with anything out there including the Spitfire.

The Fw190 was awesome when it was first released, but the Spitfire was upgraded succesfully, in the meantime the Typhoon proved good at chasing down that particular bogey. Later Mark Spits coped with the Fw190A series without any problem.

That also is a myth. The Fw-190A's never were a pushover and it was never easy for a Spitfire or any allied fighter when they met a Fw-190A. It was a marvelous aircraft and one of the best of the war. Then there was the Fw-190 which is possibly the best fighter of WW2 and many here will agree with me. Sure it had some disadvantages over the Spitfire but do you think the Spitfire did not disadvantages either? Come on now.

plus the Tempest were more than a match for the Fw190D series.

Do you really think so. I am sure that a Tempest pilot would tell you otherwise since they even have said that the Tempest was not the greatest maneuverable fighter that the British had. The Spitfire could outfly a Tempest and the Fw-190D at worst was an equal to the Spitfire.

We had the Meteor jet operational well before war's end as well.

And the Meteor was far from superior to any of the German jets.

Yes, the Luftwaffe had some sexy projects at wars end, many just on paper, others barely started flying, we can't really comment on whether these would have been successful or not.

That is because several of these aircraft were ready for flight at wars end (Ta-183, Messerschmitt P.1011, etc...), and were flown after the war by the US or other countries and proved to be far more advanced than anything that the allies had on paper at the time.

 

[davparlr]

I agree with all DerAdlerIstGelandet said but I have something to add to the last comment. The Ta-183 and Me P.1011 may have been near flight but were probably several years away from being effective fighters. The Ta-183 became the excellent Mig-15 after considerable redesign (the Germans may not have needed to do this if their proposed engines worked (I don't know all the rationale for the Russian redesign)). The P.1011 was probably further away from capability. The US did an intense analysis of its version, the Bell X-5, (which was a successful test vehicle) and determined that the vehicle would have to be an almost complete redesign in order to incoroporate the changes necessary become a successful fighter. Bell and some AF was excited about the prospects but higher ups prefered other routes. An interesting note here is that while the Mig 15 was incapable of exceeding Mach 1, Bell engineers thought that he X-5 would be supersonic capable if they were allowed to install J-65 engine (British Sapphire engine). Which they were not. Of course the X-5 data went on to be included in the excellent and underappreciated F-111, and the F-14. Obviously, these designs were well ahead of Allied designs (see my earlier comment).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Bell X-5 was based off the Messerschitt P.1011 not the Ta-183 and they changed the P.1011 by putting variable symetric wings on it.

 

[davparlr]

The Bell X-5 was based off the Messerschitt P.1011 not the Ta-183 and they changed the P.1011 by putting variable symetric wings on it.

I thought that was what I said. I guess I didn't write it too well. Further research says the P.1011 had "ground adjustable variable-sweep". The X-5 changed that to a inflight capability. I didn't catch that the first time through.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No you probably said it that way. I was really tired when I was posting that last night.

 

[davparlr]

No you probably said it that way. I was really tired when I was posting that last night.

I noted that it was really late for you.

 

[davparlr]

We also should note Lippisch's design work. I do not know how far he got but my references shows a least a glider. His work lead directly to XF-92A, F-102, F-106, and B-58. Space shuttle? And maybe contributed to the Mig-21.

The German technical base at the end of the war was impressive and we haven't even discussed balistic missiles, guided missiles, and who knows what else.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lippisch had a lot of great designs but I dont think any were close to being ready for flight. I have some pictures of one in a book back home that was almost ready but it never flew.

 

[Bullockracing]

The German aircraft copied in Russia were redesigned due to Stalin's anti-German views. In fact, more than one design was shot down for being "too German". The Ta 183/Mig-15 was redesigned for these reasons...

 

[blue swede]

WWII, as with most wars, was an amazing technology leap. In only seven years, aircraft went from not much more than biplanes (even some of them participated) to jet and rocket powered planes. The different types of aircraft that was developed was stunning. Airplanes were designed, built and flew in months. The side that is perceived to be at a disadvantage usually is the most creative, the side with the advantage tends to be Conservative or reactive. After WWI, Germany was limited in its military growth so it spent it effort in tactics and weapons quality and as a result, was significantly ahead in tactical warfare theory and application (but behind in strategic theory and application). With initial success, Germany put technology on a lower burner (attrition replacement was given a priority) and projects like jet power was let to wander. The Allies at this time, after years of ambivalence over the military, struggled hard to catch up (some technology such as the spit and some tanks were equivalent but in insufficient numbers). After the allies gained the advantage, an increasingly desperate Germany turned again to technology to save them. The allies, with more men and material, emphasized attrition replacement and applied statistical theory to warfare (if I build twice as many tanks that are half as good as the enemy, I will win). This led to things like the Sherman tank, which was not even half the capability of the enemy but just swamped them in numbers. The theory works, its just bloody. The allies at this time was strictly reactive and built tons of producible, and capable, aircraft. When the jet appeared, the allied reacted. When the V-1 appeared, they reacted, etc.

Mathematical theory won.

After all this baloney, the point is, there is no argument for the allies being ahead of Germany in areas or aerodynamic theory and aircraft and missile design at the end of the war. All allied nations changed their aircraft and missile (if they had any) designs to accommodate the information captured from the Germans. Had the allies been at a disadvantage, the reverse would have been true. From my perspective, the technological levels of the allies and axis was equivalent with only the forces of war and idiotic leaders affecting the military machine capabilities.

Sorry about the long winded entry

Maybe the difference at the start of WW2 was that the Germans were planning for their war and developing weapons for that purpose.
The Allies may have been naive about the impact of negotiations, and were not planning for the war that was to come. Instead, maybe they were developing weapons designed for containment of threats. (Excepting the Pacific forces of America being designed for projection of force, which were superior to their opponent.)
The point being; That maybe it wasn't that one country was superior to the other in technology, but more that the developments of weapon systems were subject to government policy at the time.
After WW2 the United States certainly changed its emphasis on weapon development, partly based on the experiences of WW2 and partly on it's recognition of being a true world power. Before the war it had a pacifist policy, after the war it had a aggresive defense policy.