Best Fighter III (1 Viewer)

[Udet]

One of my sisters...why do you ask?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

TIt would follow that when Gabreski and Johnson were running up their totals, they were flying against an enemy that was both quantitatively and qualitatively superior to what the P51 pilots faced seven months later. The P51 victories relatively speaking were achieved against Luftwaffe pilots in many cases who were inexperienced and outnumbered.

Interesting theory, but with a major flaw in that both Gabreski and Johnson claimed the majority of their victories in 1944. Gabreski had 7 claims at the beginning of December 1943 and got one more in December. The top scorer at the beginning of December was Bud Mahurin with 11.5. The truth is that the 8th Air Force fighters didn't accomplish much of anything in 1943 until the last two months. Out of 3,082 claims by P-47's a little over 400 were in 1943. (claims, not actual German losses}

 

[philtunes]

I'm a P-51 fan myself.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Alright then, lets just get to the important question here, who is the babe on Udets' avatar?

dang.

 

[Chingachgook]

X

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and how'd you figure the F4F is was better than the Hurricane in 1940? same top speed, hurricane has higher ceiling, greater rate of climb, the F4F has guns for which there would be no ammo in 1940, an engine no one knows how to fix and the undercarriage was very short and stubby, not conducive to use on grass airfeilds, the only area the F4F really beats the Hurricane is range........

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the only area the F4F really beats the Hurricane is range........

And landing on a carrier...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes just what the RAF were looking for in 1940 and she proved she could do it later on...........

 

[Marcel]

And landing on a carrier...

And training the muscles in your arm, as the gear was manual retracted with a bicycle chain

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the British have ruggers, cricket and shooting for that

 

[Udet]

Chinggy: no problem. 8)

I changed my avatar so you dont sweat there in front of your screens.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Reluctant poster:

There were quite a few times during the whole year of 1944 when German fighter pilots had the opportunity to engage P-51s or P-47s in situations where the allied guys did not enjoy a numerical superiority having thus a more balanced match in terms of planes joining the fight...most of such times the Germans taught them real tough lessons, either wiping out the USAAF flight or giving them a battering with minimum or no losses from the German part. More importantly, many of such times the German fliers were mainly rookies..."ill-trained" as depicted on most accounts.

Of course such kind of enagements were not too common as most times the
German boys found themselves overwhelmed by sheer numbers of enemy planes, and even then most of the times the big majority of the German fliers managed to escape and return to base even after having their fighter units enduring very high losses.

So the generally accepted allied tale of "German pilots that were ill-trained and barely capable of flying" for the 1944 period seems quite unaccurate.

I'm not making the claim that the American planes and pilots were vastly superior to the Germans. I have no opinion on that subject. As many people have stated elsewhere, the AAF Bomber offensive was a battle of attrition that the US was bound to win. God is on the side of the bigger battalions. My problem is that people don't really understand the chronology of the air war, that there is a myth being perpetuated that the P-51 suddenly appeared in vast quantities to clean up after the P-47 and P-38 did all the heavy lifting. What people fail to realize is that there was no significant bombing effort against Germany until "Big Week" in February 1944. The total tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany in 1943 was 1/10 of the tonnage dropped in 1944. The vast majority of the bombs dropped before Big Week were on towns near the French border or on the coast of the North Sea. The number of deep penetrations into German air space could be counted on the fingers of one hand and the bombers losses on those missions were enormous. When Big Week began the the 8th AAF had 2 P-38 groups and 2 P-51 groups (one on loan from the 9th AF) to provide long range escort. A third 9th AF P-51 group appeared in time for the last mission of Big Week.
In short the real battle of attrition began in February 1944 and the P-51 was a big part of it from the beginning. As I have pointed out elsewhere the P-47 posted the vast majority of it's claims in 1944, after the appearance of the P-51.
I do think that statements like "most of such times the Germans taught them real tough lessons, either wiping out the USAAF flight or giving them a battering with minimum or no losses from the German part." should be backed up by some proof.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

No in the instance that I am talking yes you can. Once the P-51D was at its patrol area over Germany it no longer had the 6 hours of flight time (or however long it was), because it had to get back to England. So during that time the Luftwaffe fighters were more on par with the time they could spend in the air. We are not talking about 1943 here or anything.

Understand what I am saying. Sure range is a great thing but lets say an aircraft has 2000mi range and it takes 600mi to get to its loiter spot and 600mi to get back. That leaves 800mi left that it can spend to fly around and search for enemy fighters. A Luftwaffe fighter with 800mi range (not talking about Bf-109 here but any fighter) can now stay in the air for the same amount of time.

Now it is just aircraft vs. aircraft and pilot vs. pilot.

Look at it from this point of view. If the P-51 and the 109 swapped places, the P-51 would likely not be as effective in the interceptor role because of it's poor rate of climb and it's meager armament, except for the fact that it wouldn't have enemy fighters to worry about because the 109's would have turned back at the French border. To claim that range doesn't matter takes the very narrow view that only the interceptor role matters.

 

[davparlr]

I almost fully agree with you, however, even at low alt the later P-80A would probably be at a disadvantage in acceleration compared to the Me-262, but this is assuming both a/c are running at full throttle - something which was very risky for the Me-262 pilot as the axial flow Jumo engines could reach incredibly high temperatures if run too long at this setting, temperatures higher than the metals at the time could handle. - Like I said I don't think the true maximum speed of the Me-262 was ever recorded as the engines simply couldn't run full throttle for the needed amount of time.

As to the 1946 scenario, well by that time the Me-262 would've had different and more powerful engines while the P-80A had nearly just gotten its fixed.

And about the accounts suggesting the Me-262 broke the soundbarrier, well I agree speed indicators at the time were not accurate those speeds, besides the Me-262 was going to need alot more power to do this, and even then its not certain the airframe could take it - no doubt it came close though, but atleast another 100 - 150 km/h was needed.

I don't have any arguments here except the comment about the Me 262 having superior performance in 46. Both American and British were developing more powerful engines and had aircraft by late 46 and early 47 that were capable of 600 mph. The P-80B began delivery in early 47 and had a more powerful engine than the P-80A. The British had established a world speed record of 615 mph in 46, and this in a significantly reduced military budget. If Allied military development on jet aircraft had continued after mid 45, it is unrealistic to believe that significant performance increased would have occured. Also, I think you are making an assumption that the continued engine development would have solve the problems of the German jet engines. I don't doubt that they had the capibility to do this but I don't think there advances would be any faster than the Allies. Now the swept wing Me 262? That's something else but I would doubt that it would have made 1946.

 

[davparlr]

The Fw190 was a fine ww2 fighter and it seems that many members here pick the Fw 190D-9 as the best of the war. From a performance point of view I show the D-9 as making 426 mph at 21,650 ft with a time to climb to 19,685 ft of 7 min 6 sec with combat power and a range on internal fuel of 520 miles. The F4U-4 could make 446 mph at 26,200 ft, it's service ceiling was 41, 500 ft, it's rate of climb was 3870 fpm, and it had a range on internal fuel of 1005 miles. It had a better roll rate than the Mustang, was practically unbreakable, had an air cooled engine, (couldn't be brought down by a single round like the liquid cooled engined fighters) and in a pinch could carry a 4000 pound bomb load. It had excellent short field takeoff and landing characteristics. Sounds like a winner to me.

The F4U-4 was indeed a powerful aircraft and certainly should be considered a best fighter of WWII if we disregard the contribution to the war. This plane would be in a class with the P-47M and N, P-51H (a stretch but still was delivered by wars end) and various British and German latter war aircraft (Me 109Ks, Ta 152s, et. al.) that performed very well but contributed little. I would perfer that war contribution would be a factor in best WWII fighter.

The comment that it could not be brought down by a single bullet is ludicrious. If I was flying that plane, a single bullet would find away to shoot it down. It was a rugged plane, though! It would have been one of my nine plane airforce selection, another thread.

 

[renrich]

Re the F4F-3 v Hurricane discussion and we are having an academic discussion here. There was plenty of ammo in the US, I have to believe that the radial engines were at least as reliable as the Merlins. The firing time for the Wildcat guns was 28.7 sec which has to be more than the Hurris and the the throw weight was 6.36 pd/sec which was substantially more than the Hurris. Add in a 1100 mile yardstick range, a 3300 fpm climb rate at sea level, a more rugged airframe and an engine more resistant to battle damage and the Wildcat or Martlet I could have been a formidable weapon for the RAF during the BOB if it had been available. My only point as far as this discussion is concerned is that there is a certain amount of academic prejudice that the shipboard fighters that fought in the Pacific were second class performers and couldn't compete in Europe. My opinion is that that prejudice is somewhat unfounded. It is interesting to speculate as to what type of aircraft the Royal Navy would have operated if, during the period 1918-1939, they had been allowed to develop their preferred designs.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

yes just what the RAF were looking for in 1940 and she proved she could do it later on...........

Sure did!

And training the muscles in your arm, as the gear was manual retracted with a bicycle chain

So....

It worked just fine!

 

[renrich]

The single bullet statement is only meant to illustrate how, with a liquid cooled engine, a single well placed bullet in the cooling system can disable a fighter. Obviously a single bullet in a single seat fighter's pilot's head can bring down any aircraft. A survey of both American and British pilots at the fighter meet in Pautuxent River, Md. in 1944 showed that 79% named the R2800 as the engine which inspired the most confidence. 17% named the Merlin.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Look at it from this point of view. If the P-51 and the 109 swapped places, the P-51 would likely not be as effective in the interceptor role because of it's poor rate of climb and it's meager armament, except for the fact that it wouldn't have enemy fighters to worry about because the 109's would have turned back at the French border. To claim that range doesn't matter takes the very narrow view that only the interceptor role matters.

No you are completely missing my point. My point is that once the P-51 was over Germany and was fighting a Bf-109 or Fw-190 that had just taken off, its range was negligent in the fight. Think about what I am saying.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The single bullet statement is only meant to illustrate how, with a liquid cooled engine, a single well placed bullet in the cooling system can disable a fighter. Obviously a single bullet in a single seat fighter's pilot's head can bring down any aircraft. A survey of both American and British pilots at the fighter meet in Pautuxent River, Md. in 1944 showed that 79% named the R2800 as the engine which inspired the most confidence. 17% named the Merlin.

Yes radials are typically more rugged than the inline engines. A R2800 is more rugged than a Merlin however to think that a single well place bullet can not bring down a P-47 or that a single well placed bullet will not destroy a R2800 engine is naive.