Best Fighter III

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and besides the spit did escort bomber command on daylight raids into northern France in '44...........

 

[Gnomey]

Yes it did, they also escorted the 8th Airforce to the borders of Germany and back (along with P-47's) before the P-51's came into the role.

 

[plan_D]

I have to admit, I can see syscom's point quite clearly. The Mustang, Lightning and Corsair did have that large advantage over the Spitfire in that they could take the fight to the enemy. For the PTO this was especially important. And I think where the PTO is concerned, the Spitfire was unimportant.

However, the importance of range in the ETO and all other theatres that the Western Allies were involved in was not so large. Only from the start of 8th Air Force operations to D-Day was range important. Once the Allies had landed in Europe, the Spitfire could follow the advancing forces and move closer and closer to the enemy. The ground forces moved the Spitfire forward. In Europe, the borders are close giving no need for extensive range.

In the CBI, the same situation occured. The opposing armies were close, so range was little needed. Even in one circumstance, during Operation Thursday, Spitfires were based BEHIND enemy lines!

The Spitfire was a contender in all one on one combat throughout the entirety of the war. And it served in every single Allied air force, from the USAAF, to the VVS, to the RAF, to the RCAF ... it served in every single theatre of war; in Italy, Russia, England, France, Germany, North Africa, Burma, India, Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean ... the Russians begged for delivery of the Spitfire, the U.S used 'em, the British relied on them and the Germans feared them. Hardly the career of a "also ran" aircraft.

 

[syscom3]

Range was a primary consideration of greatness. The Spit escorting bombers to northern France? WOW! Remember that the P38 and P51 were flying into western Poland in search of the Luftwaffe. Now thats impressive. By the time the Spit could get into battle, the P51's and P38's had already destroyed the Luftwaffe.

The Spit was usefull for keeping the bomber and fighter bases safe during takeoff and assembly, but that in itself is not a reason for greatness. A group of Hurricanes or P40's could do the same thing.

In the PTO, range was the master. The CBI was a sideshow. It was the central and SW Pacific where the war was going to be won or lost. And the two fighters that had the range to make the difference was the P38 and F4U. In 1945, the P51H and P47N were far outranging the Spit.

 

[wmaxt]

Also ran, the Spitfire was anything but an also ran during the latter half of the war. Sure the P-51's were taking the fight to over German soil but the latter mark Spitfire's were better in almost every department than the P-51's and F4U's apart from one, RANGE.

For example: Climb Data (at sea level in feet per min):
P-47: 2,560
P-38: 3,300
P-51: 3,600 (low blower)/ 2,965 (high blower)
Tempest: 4,380
Typhoon: 3,840 (at 1,700ft)
Spitfire MKIX: 4,620 (Merlin 66)/ 4,390 (Merlin 70)
Spitfire MKXIV: 4,700
FW-190D-9: 3,329
From here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ (on the various pages for the aircraft). As you can see the P-51 climbs just over half as quickly as the Spitfires.

The Spitfire was easily one of the finest fighters of the war, it played a large part from the beginning to the end. Even at the end of the war there was NO fighter that could completely outclass it. One on one a Spitfire would most likely be able to shoot down a P-51 whereas the P-51 would find it hard to shoot down the Spitfire. The only fighters that made the Spitfire obselete were Jets, any other contempory piston engined fighter and the Spitfire was as good as (FW190D-9) or better than (most of the rest).

The P-38J/L models had a sea level climb of 4,000ft/min Its average to 20,000ft is 3725ft/min and there is an AAF report of the L model at 4.91 to 20,000ft.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com (actual flight test of an off the line aircraft) and could out climb the P-51 anywhere. As compared to the Spitfire this site has a P-38F Spit IX comparision,
http://prodocs.netfirms.com please note that the climb data of the P-38 is right in the middle, better than the normal prop reduction and slightly behind the max climb prop reduction. Also the later P-38s were better.

The P-38s were at va dissadvantage in turn performance above 250mph, below that there are reports of P-38s challenging Zero's on occasion (read the story of John Tilley). Climb performance was only challenged by the Spit and the F4U-4. There is a well known story about a P-38 and a Griffon engined Spit where they started head to head and the P-38 got in all the licks.

I feel that the top piston fighters were the P-38J/L, Spitfire, F4U-4 and Fw-190D (no particular order). In a head to head, more or less equal confrontation any of these aircraft could come out on top, assuming pilots of equal proficency in their aircraft. These aircraft were reaching the pinnacle of piston aircraft no one plane was the best though it could have a particular advantage in a certain situation.

wmaxt

 

[red admiral]

By the time the Spit could get into battle, the P51's and P38's had already destroyed the Luftwaffe.

Nah, the Mosquito had already destroyed the Luftwaffe by day far more efficiently than the P51 or P38.

Personally I'd go with the following for "best" fighter, i.e. what is most likely to win.

Below 10,000ft Hawker Typhoon
10,000 - 20,000ft Macchi MC.205
Above 20,000ft Spitfire XIV

There is a well known story about a P-38 and a Griffon engined Spit where they started head to head and the P-38 got in all the licks.

Similar to another well-known story about how a Lancaster outran P-47s repeatedly over Canada?

 

[delcyros]

I do think this discussion doesn´t help to answer. If I were a US citizen, I would shift importance to range, in case I would be russian, I would shift importance to low altitude, easy handling, high performance planes. As British fellow, I would put emphasis on a well balanced design with excellent agility and as a german I would prefer pure firepower and high speed...
Shouldn´t we rather choose the best plane for specific purposes? Long range capabilities weren´t important for the Luftwaffe other than 1940. Heavy armament wasn´t important for USAAF escort fighters...
So, I would rather ask, which abilities were important for all contenders equally and then I would like to pick a favourite one...
So, whats important? Speed of course, what else?

 

[wmaxt]

I do think this discussion doesn´t help to answer. If I were a US citizen, I would shift importance to range, in case I would be russian, I would shift importance to low altitude, easy handling, high performance planes. As British fellow, I would put emphasis on a well balanced design with excellent agility and as a german I would prefer pure firepower and high speed...
Shouldn´t we rather choose the best plane for specific purposes? Long range capabilities weren´t important for the Luftwaffe other than 1940. Heavy armament wasn´t important for USAAF escort fighters...
So, I would rather ask, which abilities were important for all contenders equally and then I would like to pick a favourite one...
So, whats important? Speed of course, what else?

Interesting Idea. Range is a perspective thing on the other hand, as you note, had the Germans had an effective fighter with range they might very well have won the BoB which would have put a very different spin on WWII. Extra range in Russia would have made a difference to.

All fighters need balance but your right about specific capabilities in that as performance peaks more specialization is required for instance speed over climb.

wmaxt

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with Del here.

At the same time I disagree with Syscom as well. He said by the time the Spitfires reach combat the P-51s and P-38s had allready destroyed the Luftwaffe. Are you forgetting the fact that if the Spitfires and Hurricanes had not won the Battle of Britain then there would have been no USAAF to destroy the Luftwaffe. Dont tell me they would have gotten aerial refueling and taken off from bases on the east coast.

 

[lesofprimus]

And also dont forget that there were British fighters on European soil in 1945, knocking down all sorts of Luftwaffe fighters, including the -262... Gotta love the Tempest...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes spits weren't just defending airfields sys (although they did defend the american formations whilst they were forming up, without them jerry could easily walk into the forming up bombers and leave a trail of death and destruction as the P-51s wouldn't be ready for them), insted of just repeating what everyone else is saying about how great the spit is, which it is, i'll try a new angle... if the P-51 and P-38 were such magnificent super-fighters capable of taking on any enemy fighter anywhere and always wining without exception, then why didn't the British and other allied air forces use them? The British bought some Mustangs, what was stopping us ditching the spit altogether and re-equiping with just mustangs?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good question. I think one answer lies in the fact that if the British stopped making Spitfires, then that would have hurt the British Industry. You needed jobs for the people. Dont take me wrong, I dont think that is the only answer. I think the Spitfire was a better aircraft overall than the P-51. The P-51 had advantages over the Spit but overall the Spit was a better aircraft.

 

[hole in the ground]

right jumping straight into the deep end. (hi all BTW)
The mustangs that Britain used had the un turbo-ed alison engine in it. This proved a poor perfomance at altitude (where bombers live). As such it was re assigned to ground attack duties.
However with such tankbusters as the Typhoon, it was deemed unnessasery to 'buy' aircraft when home grown ones could do the same job/s as well if not better.

 

[syscom3]

.....I think the Spitfire was a better aircraft overall than the P-51. The P-51 had advantages over the Spit but overall the Spit was a better aircraft.

If the Spitfire was so good, how come it didnt fly any missions over Germany untill late 1944?

 

[plan_D]

Welcome to the site.

When Britain aimed to purchase new aircraft from America it believed the US designs inferior to it's own. They rightly believed that the P-39 and P-40 that was on offer was inferior to both the Spitfire and Bf-109. From the outset Britain chose to purchase a low-level fighter-bomber that could free up the Spitfire and Hurricane for the interceptor and fighter sweep roles.
The NAA produced the Mustang instead, and the RAF first operated the Mustang Mk.I in the Army Co-Operation role as armed recon planes. It was quickly discovered that the plane had the potential as a fighter-bomber, and was equipped with bombs which it could deliver quickly and accurately.

The Mustang was never re-assigned by the RAF to ground-attack sorties. It was purchased and deployed for that role in the first place. In any case, the F3R Allison engine only dropped the Mustangs performance above 13,000 feet. And in 1941 the RAF were still bombing below 20,000 feet, sometimes down to 1,000 feet.

You are wrong in your assumption, also, that the RAF only acquired Allison-engined Mustangs. Both the Mustang Mk.IV and IVA (P-51D and K respectively) were in RAF service by the end of the war.

Picture attached is a line-up of 112 Sqdn. Mustang Mk.IVs. The closest serial is KH832.

 

[hole in the ground]

well a good start for me,
fair cop.
I see that i have alot to learn

 

[mosquitoman]

Don't worry, you will.

And syscom, the reason no Spits flew over Germany until late 44 was that they COULDN'T GET THERE.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Exactly but if you put a Spit up against a P-51D in a dogfight the Spit will win almost every time. The only advantage the P-51D had over the Spit and most aircraft as a matter of fact was its range.

 

[Hop]

If the Spitfire was so good, how come it didnt fly any missions over Germany untill late 1944?

The first Spitfire sortie over Berlin was 14th March 1941. They flew over most of Germany on a frequent basis after that, in the recce role.

The reason they didn't fly fighter sorties over Germany is the same reason USAAF fighters didn't until late 1943. Long range escort required extra tankage, which wasn't fitted until late in the war because a: the RAF was bombing by night, and b: the USAAF thought bombers didn't need escorts.

And syscom, the reason no Spits flew over Germany until late 44 was that they COULDN'T GET THERE.

Jeffery Quill flew a Spitfire IX fitted with a 75 gallon rear tank and 45 gallon drop tank from Salisbury Plain to the Morray Firth and back, a distance of 1,100 miles. That's the same as East Anglia to Berlin and back. And he did it at 1,000ft, which gives much worse consumption (the weather was bad, so he stayed below the cloud base).

The longest range Spitfire would be the VIII, with 123 gallons internal, a 90 gallon drop tank, and in late production aircraft a 75 gallon rear tank. Fuel consumption was on the order of 10 mpg at minimum speed, 6 mpg at about 310 mph cruise, with easily enough range for Berlin and back.

The thing is, though, the USAAF didn't build a long range escort until they needed one, and the RAF didn't need one at all, so put less effort into it. But giving a fighter much longer range isn't hard, you just need to pack more fuel in, as long as there's room for that (and there was in the Spitfire), extending the range is just a matter of producing the drop tanks and auxilary tanks.

 

[Glider]

The first Spitfire sortie over Berlin was 14th March 1941. They flew over most of Germany on a frequent basis after that, in the recce role.

The reason they didn't fly fighter sorties over Germany is the same reason USAAF fighters didn't until late 1943. Long range escort required extra tankage, which wasn't fitted until late in the war because a: the RAF was bombing by night, and b: the USAAF thought bombers didn't need escorts.



Jeffery Quill flew a Spitfire IX fitted with a 75 gallon rear tank and 45 gallon drop tank from Salisbury Plain to the Morray Firth and back, a distance of 1,100 miles. That's the same as East Anglia to Berlin and back. And he did it at 1,000ft, which gives much worse consumption (the weather was bad, so he stayed below the cloud base).

The longest range Spitfire would be the VIII, with 123 gallons internal, a 90 gallon drop tank, and in late production aircraft a 75 gallon rear tank. Fuel consumption was on the order of 10 mpg at minimum speed, 6 mpg at about 310 mph cruise, with easily enough range for Berlin and back.

The thing is, though, the USAAF didn't build a long range escort until they needed one, and the RAF didn't need one at all, so put less effort into it. But giving a fighter much longer range isn't hard, you just need to pack more fuel in, as long as there's room for that (and there was in the Spitfire), extending the range is just a matter of producing the drop tanks and auxilary tanks.

Nicely put and hard to disagree with. That said someone will.