Best Fighter III

[amrit]

No. The Germans would have had the experience from Spain and Poland and so would still have the most experience followed by the Russians and Italians...

I think the Finns would probably have been more experienced than the Russians - Russian losses were so high that many Russians couldn't use their experiences or pass them on.

 

[Civettone]

Yeah that makes sense.

As the Finnish were also the best trained and had the best tactics they must have been formidable adversaries.
Kris

 

[drgondog]

I read the articles and generally agree with his argument. The .50 cal was used effectively by the Americans because their targets tended to be relatively lightly armored, e.g., fighters. It is interesting to note that in the 1944 Report of Joint Fighter Conference, that the issue was raised on whether the US should switch to 20mm guns. The the discussion was simple and straight forward, the .50 cals were sufficient for tasks assigned. No raves, just did the job. This conference included a lot of Navy guys, too.

Korea ended up being a 'revelation when a lot of MiG 15's limped off because 50 cal API wasn't lighting any fires at 40,000 feet. The USAF wasn't expecting the fight to be 'up there'.

I was actually a 6-8 year old kid listening to pilots in our living room (and bar)rotating back from Korea at Eglin - all of them (USAF types) begging for 20mm in 86's. I used to have 50 inert rounds of the experimental .60 cal also tested at Eglin - which was just big enough to stuff a reliable explosive round.

And - off topic - it took a fire bombing internal USAF terrorist by the name of John Boyd to show the brass why our fighters were getting whipped by Soviet Bloc dogfighters (and continue forward if unchanged) based on better Energy ACM because we tried to make every fighter a cheetah that had inertia like an elephant...and conserved energy like whales.

I wonder what the next great revelation will be?

My guess is that the radar and computers will be good enough to spot wake turbulence when there is no radar signature fo an a/c - then Stealth investment not so pretty any more...as the fire control systems put a proximity weapon 'just in front' of that disturbance..

just opinions and sorry to divert your post.

 

[davparlr]

My guess is that the radar and computers will be good enough to spot wake turbulence when there is no radar signature fo an a/c - then Stealth investment not so pretty any more...as the fire control systems put a proximity weapon 'just in front' of that disturbance..

just opinions and sorry to divert your post.

As signals get closer to noise, decoy and other countermeasures become far more effective.

Also remember, the very powerful sensors required to detect air turbulence would be detected by the stealth aircraft long before the turbulence would be detected, resulting in the use of an appropiate suppression method. This is one of the primary tasks of stealth aircraft, SEAD (surpression of enemy air defenses).

 

[drgondog]

Dave - I suspect we are too close to the newer systems like the former USSR is putting into Iran that even advanced Harm like systems will be no good for anti radar site suppression with missles... I'm too far away from current to near future doctrine and systems but believe (not know) that to be true

Further, the role of the stealthy guys is to take out the sophisticated radar and guidance systems.. if the next step in anti aircraft is in radiation/beam type weapons instead of missles coupled to the wake detection radar then all the countermeasure weapons in the inventory and on the board are worthless unless you can jam the signal producing system or take the sites out from space.. which makes stealth irrelevant at that moment in time anyway.

We're close to that now. I saw some awesome laser technology at Sandia in the early 80's - can't imagine where that technology is 25 years later.

And it certainly has to occur to both of us that if we are close to hitting MIRVs from ground stations at long range, that the detection systems and ballistic guidance to something in front of wake turbulence that doesn't care about an IR signature, then current countermeasures won't be effective in the future.

just an interested old codger - as we take this diversion.

Regards,

Bill

I'll take your word that my points are silly.

 

[SirianKnight]

Hi People! My virgin post in here.

Best fighter (in AIR COMBAT) of WWII - I think that I generally agree with Captain Eric Brown RN, who flew and comprehensively tested them all!
Brown says Üp till 1943 the Zero was the best. After that, he cites the P51, Griffon Spits and Fw 190D as being hard to seperate.

I am inclined to include the Yak3 as a contender.

I personally give the credit for NEUTRALISING the Luftwaffe to the good old P47. Wasn't necessarily a great fighter...but it was there in NUMBERS', it was tough, well armed and flown by well trained, motivated pilots!

My personal favourites....the Tempest and the P38.

SirianKnight

 

[drgondog]

Hi People! My virgin post in here.

Best fighter (in AIR COMBAT) of WWII - I think that I generally agree with Captain Eric Brown RN, who flew and comprehensively tested them all!
Brown says Üp till 1943 the Zero was the best. After that, he cites the P51, Griffon Spits and Fw 190D as being hard to seperate.

I am inclined to include the Yak3 as a contender.

I personally give the credit for NEUTRALISING the Luftwaffe to the good old P47. Wasn't necessarily a great fighter...but it was there in NUMBERS', it was tough, well armed and flown by well trained, motivated pilots!

My personal favourites....the Tempest and the P38.

SirianKnight

The Jug was one of the most important USAAF fighters but the NUMBERs had nothing to do with air superiority over Germany as they couldn't go past Bremen and Stuttgart. The P-51 Neutralized the Luftwaffe.

The 51 should not be nominated as the Best if you use equal rating for turn radius, climb, dive, roll, top speed, ceiling, range, acceleration or toughness - but because it was as good or better as the LW could put up over Berlin when no other fighter could get close - it gets the nomination for MOST IMPORTANT in capturing air superiority over Germany in 1944.

Eric Brown BTW ranked the Spit, the 109 then the F6F before the 51 as Best. We used to have some spirited debates about the thesis I just posed to you. He is a very knowledgeable guy and the only one who can discuss comparative capabilities of all the top fighters with an objective POV of having flown ALL extensively. I rested my case on Strategic Footprint, he rested his case on evolutionary excellence (Spit)

This is a debate that will never have all the proponents agreeing... which is why it is fun

 

[Soren]

AFAIK, the Spitfire Mk.XIV FW-190 Dora-9 were the the two very best piston engined fighters of WW2 according to Eric Brown.

Acording to Eric Browm the absolute best fighter to emerge from WW2 was the Me-262A-1a, in his own words ''The most formidable aircraft of the war".

 

[Bullockracing]

BTW Eric Brown didn't even know proper English - The He 219 moniker of "Uhu" was not an "onomatopoeic sobriquet" as he so eloquently mispoke in his book... This type of erroneous use of big words to make yourself seem better than everyone else places your personal opinion under suspicion IMHO...

 

[PFF]

Depends on what you wanted in a aircraft:
Fast--try the P-38
Powerful--the P-47
BEAUTIFUL-the P-51
Came across a website oN WW II aircraft-US pilots thought the ME 109 cockpit was too cramped while German Pilots thought the P-47 cockpit was too big!!!! True?

 

[Glider]

BTW Eric Brown didn't even know proper English - The He 219 moniker of "Uhu" was not an "onomatopoeic sobriquet" as he so eloquently mispoke in his book... This type of erroneous use of big words to make yourself seem better than everyone else places your personal opinion under suspicion IMHO...

I admit that I thought this pretty close. An onomatopoeic sobriquet would imply that the nickname was a close description of the obect in question. In this case, the He219 being nicknamed 'Owl' was I suggest close, as it certainly had the potential be be a capable hunter of the night and was by no means a poor performer.

Unless I miss my mark by a long way.

 

[renrich]

In my opinion, Eric Brown was an extremely biased and not particularly astute "expert." For instance, he scorns the F4U and holds the F6F up as a paragon. I never talked or have read that a pilot who flew either of these AC would pick an Hellcat in ACM over a Corsair. The USN, as soon as the deck landing problems of the Corsair were solved, replaced the F6F with F4Us ASAP. All of Brown's evaluations are suspect, IMHO.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In my opinion, Eric Brown was an extremely biased and not particularly astute "expert." For instance, he scorns the F4U and holds the F6F up as a paragon. I never talked or have read that a pilot who flew either of these AC would pick an Hellcat in ACM over a Corsair. The USN, as soon as the deck landing problems of the Corsair were solved, replaced the F6F with F4Us ASAP. All of Brown's evaluations are suspect, IMHO.

I completly agree with you.

Does anyone have a numbered list of how he ranked the aircraft?

 

[renrich]

According to Brown, "Duels In the Sky" the list is in descending order: Spitfire XIV, FW 190D9, Mustang IV, George 12, Tempest V, F6F3, Zeke 53. I don't know where that leaves F4U4, contemporaneous with George and Spifire XIV. It would easily defeat half that list and be no worse than even with the rest. His list of greatest Naval fighters is: Hellcat,Zeke,Wildcat,Corsair, Sea Hurricane, Seafire. Guess the USN did not know about Brown's disdain for the Corsair.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So he rated the Seafire and the Sea Hurricane better than teh Corsair?

Wow...

 

[renrich]

No, he rated the Sea Hurricane and Seafire behind the Corsair. The list is in descending order. I am a computer ignoramus and don't know how to do paragraphs or columns. Sorry. Actually, I believe Brown test flew an early F4U1 with the bird cage canopy, perhaps made by Brewster and with all the flaws that made the early Corsair a beast to land on a carrier. The leaking cowl flap hydraulics, bouncing landing gear, abrupt left wing stall, poor visibility, tail wiggle and never bothered to update his data and opinions. He gives the top speed of the Corsair I as 395 mph when the USN figures as well as manufacturer ones say 417 mph before they had water injection. My personal opinion is that he would not acknowledge the performance of the F4U4 because that would mean he would have to give it serious consideration as the best overall fighter of WW2. He was very biased toward European designs.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay either way how the hell is the Zeke ahead of the Corsair? That alone gives me reason to suspect.

 

[Civettone]

Perhaps he didn't consider it to be suited for carrier operations... When did he test the Corsair?

Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont know but the Corsair was a magnificent carrier fighter and it outperformed all of the above aircraft in his ratings.

 

[Hop]

It might have had higher performance, but I suspect Brown was more concerned with how it performed overall.

The USN provide lots of operational records, and comparing the Hellcat and Corsair shows the Hellcat to have much lower loss rates.

Hellcats flew 41,715 combat sorties from carriers. Losses were 551 to enemy action, 212 not to enemy action on operational sorties, and 509 on non-operational sorties. That's 1,272 losses, or 1 loss per 32.8 sorties.

For Corsairs the figures are 9,138 operational sorties from carriers, 167 losses to enemy action, 69 not to enemy action on operational sorties, 224 on non operational sorties. That's 460 losses, or 1 loss per 19.9 sorties.

1 in 75 Hellcat operational sorties resulted in a loss to enemy action.
1 in 54 Corsair operational sorties resulted in a loss to enemy action.

1 in 196 Hellcat operational sorties resulted in an accidental loss.
1 in 132 Corsair operational sorties resulted in an accidental loss.

The Hellcat lost 1 aircraft to non operational causes per 82 operational sorties.
The Corsair lost 1 aircraft to non operational causes per 41 operational sorties.

A seperate set of figures from the USN, loss rates for 1944 and 1945 from carriers:

Operational losses per 100 action sorties:

F6F - 0.5
F4U - 0.74

Per 100 non action sorties:

F6F - 0.7
F4U - 1.15

Per 100 planes onboard ship a month:

F6F - 3.1
F4U - 5.5

The F4U had substantially higher loss rates than the Hellcat. That might have been acceptable if the performance differences were huge, but I don't think they were.