Best Fighter in Service Before 1 September 1939

[Vincenzo]

Damn!
That leaves the Westland Whirlwind out. There's a plane with no luck, not even in operational date of entry...

for true is not that that leaves the whirlwind out, no whirlwind was delivered at squadrons in '39 (need late may '40 for 1st delivery to 25th squadron)

 

[Vincenzo]

What make a fighter best?
imho
fightning factors:
best vertical speed
best horizontal speed
best manuvreability (turn rate, roll rate ...)
best offence capacity (guns, ammos...)
best defence capacity (toughness of structure, armour, ss tank...)
operational factors:
flying with bad weather
take off with bad fields
range/endurance
radio/comunications
ammos reserve
reliability
visibility

other factors are not plane relative as tatics, pilot skill...

i miss something??

 

[krieghund]

Let's try the He-100D twenty five available can't help the german gene pool problem at times it has another 160km of range on the same amount of fuel I would change the armament to be three MG151/15 high velocity and flat trajectory

The Emil's problem is a deflection shot (as the A6M2) which will you hit the target with the 20's or the 7.9s'

also the biggest problem with this kind of question is what are your requirements you are building to?

fighter vs fighter or anti-bomber or other? this dictates your configuration and can put you at a disadvantage against other types ergo the Mig-1 3 built against a threat not yet materialized good for high alt not low alt same as P-39 till the Army gene pool got in the mix.

My pick would be the P-39C it has the options in my flight manual for four .50s--more range, higher roll, better climb than most just keep the battle below 15000ft


loose the dogs

 

[Civettone]

perhaps the most important thing ... reliability (including maintenance)

Kris

 

[Condora]

for true is not that that leaves the whirlwind out, no whirlwind was delivered at squadrons in '39 (need late may '40 for 1st delivery to 25th squadron)

That's what I meant.

 

[Vincenzo]

That's what I meant.

oh, i thinked that you referee to full sqadron part

 

[Vincenzo]

perhaps the most important thing ... reliability (including maintenance)

Kris

right, i add

 

[Civettone]

One more important element: cost (to produce, in wartime measured in manhours or perhaps in terms of cricical materials).

And perhaps a smaller one: visibility. P-51B vs P-51D.

Kris

 

[Vincenzo]

One more important element: cost (to produce, in wartime measured in manhours or perhaps in terms of cricical materials).

And perhaps a smaller one: visibility. P-51B vs P-51D.

Kris

cost it's too hard for add, pratically impossible know manhours and materials (that can change with time)

visibility here it's clear that the old w/o closed cockpit are in advantage

 

[Civettone]

But there are several aircraft for which we don't really know turn and roll rate, structural integrity, armour, take-off handling, etc.

But open cockpits also have a disadvantage in bad weather... One could say their effectiveness decreases in the winter, at least on the Eastern Front.

Kris

 

[Vincenzo]

we need "arrangiarci" with that know or can know.
i've look the weaponry of fighters operational before of WWII.
put out the only with 2 or 4 .30' we have:
IK-2 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
P. 24 (some variants) 2 20 mm guns and 2 .30'
C.R. 32 (not chinese variant and early productions) 2 .50'
C.R. 42 2 .50'
G. 50 2 .50'
M.S. 406 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
D. 501 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
D. 510 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
Bf 109 E-3 2 20 mm guns and 2 .30'
He 112 2 20 mm guns and 2 .30'
I-15 (some) 2 .50'
I-153 (some) 2 .50'
I-16 (uncommon) 2 20 mm guns and 2 .30'
Hawk 75 (P-36A) 1 .50' 1 .30' (P-36C) 1 .50' 3 .30' (A2 many) 6 .30'
P-35 1 .50' 1 .30'
P-26 1 .50' 1 .30'
F3F 1 .50' 1 .30'
Hurricane 8 .30'
Spitfire 8 .30'
Bk 534 1 20 mm gun and 2 .30'
G I (original nederland order) 8 .30'
Potez 630 2 20 mm guns
Potez 631 2 20 mm guns
Blenheim IF 5 .30'
Bf 110 2 20 mm guns 4 .30'

 

[johnbr]

What about the Me 109d

 

[Condora]

Oh-oh!
You guys are are going to have trouble getting to a conclusion: too many variables to decide, some of them are almost impossible to determine today...

You'd better decide the parameters now, and stick to them, otherwise you'll get nowhere.
It is difficult to evaluate maintenance - yes, it is important -, but take the Hurricane and Spitfire:
one of the reasons the Hurricane was the workhorse of the Battle of Britain, was that with the same engine and firepower, although it had a slight inferior performance than the Spit, it was much easier to patch up the holes on the Hurricane, so it could fly again. The Hurricane had a less sophisticated construction, and almost as important, the groundcrews KNEW how to work with it, because it was the same used in previous airplanes (the Fury, for instance).

That kind of factor is difficult to weight, so it's best kept as a "tie break factor".

 

[parsifal]

Well I will buck the trend and argue that the Spit in 1939 was superior to the Me 109, for a couple of reasons. In 1939 the Me109 was still experiencing some problems in its armamant....I believe the spinner mounted cannon wa prone to jam. The cramped conditions of the cocpit made it hard work for the pilot. It had rather vicious dive characteristics, and its high speed turns were not nearly as easy to execute as that of the Spit. The spits armament of 1939 was straightforward and simple, but above all reliable. It was more than adequate to deal with the unarmoured targets of 1939. It was fitted with armour before the 109, and in my opinion was a design that had greater design stretchability over the 109. Excluding types that did not see service, or at least no large scale service, the Spitfires flying at the nd of the war in my opinion were superior to the Me109s flying in main stream service in 1945

 

[Vincenzo]

What spinner mounted cannon in '39????
and imho the armour came before on 109

 

[Condora]

Parsifal,
The idea is the best fighter available when the war began, not when it ended.

The spit was a bit cramped too, if that is a factor, go for the Hurricane.

aside: the race for guns on fighters began because armour was used to counter the growing number of machine-guns airplanes carried. Everybody was moving from the rifle calibers to the 20mm or more, to get more punch. I'm don't remember who wrote it (Braybrook again?), but the .50 was not considered as an option as it would soon be outdated by better armour, something that didn't really happen.

 

[Clay_Allison]

If I was offered my choice of any 1939 plane to fly in combat, I'd choose the Bf-110. I know it seems weird but I want the heavy concentrated armament and I think I could get away with refusing to turn fight and fighting on the "Boom and Zoom".

 

[Vincenzo]

If I was offered my choice of any 1939 plane to fly in combat, I'd choose the Bf-110. I know it seems weird but I want the heavy concentrated armament and I think I could get away with refusing to turn fight and fighting on the "Boom and Zoom".

good choice best armament, 3rd in horizontal speed, i don't check i think good also in vertical speed

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What about the Me 109d

Why, when the Bf 109E was in service by that time?

 

[Clay_Allison]

good choice best armament, 3rd in horizontal speed, i don't check i think good also in vertical speed

I don't know if it would have been a possible modification but 6x MG 131 in the nose + 1x MG 131 in the tail I always though would have been the perfect nose armament for that big bird. You could have gotten 1000 meter kills with that arrangement.