Best Fighter of the war to build Your Fighter Arm around.

davebender said:

Historically in production during April 1945 which makes it just as plausible as P-51H and F8F.

Click to expand...

For once I agree with you. This is a hypothetical question, and if I had to base my air force around one aircraft in 1939 it would be the hypothetical 1939 Me 262. Jets were the future and I'd want to get in on the ground floor. My jets will render all your piston engine fighters redundant, just as they did in a non-hypothetical, historical sense.
Cheers
Steve

FLYBOYJ said:

Great discussion. I'm approaching this as if I was a smaller country, not one of the larger combatants.

Click to expand...

For a smaller country cost and ease of flying (too many accidents and you run out of planes and pilots) are perhaps more important than all out performance. I would have to go with the Hellcat, easy to fly, cheaper than many and so tough you couldnt kill it with bumpy landings that would ground a Spit or P51. Plus it is a Swiss Army knife plane it can do your day and night fighting, recon, ground pounding and escort duties. Heck load it up with bombs and use a bomber leader plane to do the aiming and you have a better level bomber than any multi engine bomber of 39.

GregP said:

If the P-51H wasn't fully operational, neither was the Ta-152H. There were never more than 25 Ta-152's of any variety in service at the same time and oiften fewer than 10. Flying it in combat doesn't not make it operational and there never WAS a spare parts supply chain for it. If one sent unserviceable, another plane was canabalized or it weas out of action.

In that case, with the P-51H and Ta-152 out of the running by the definition of operational, my choice would be the F4U-4 Corsair.

If we could have a Spitfire XIV with a 1200 mile range, I'd go that way, but I don't think it ever made more than just over or under 500 miles unless drop tanks were carried, and they aren't going to get the required range.

Click to expand...

I am speechless after this post!!!! Flying in combat by an operational unit does not make it operational!!!!!
stab and III/JG301 recieved the firts 152in 27/1/45. The pilots were trained in the NEW fighter and flew their First combat Mission on 2/3/45 with 12 aircraft.Then flew constantly combat until the end of april.
All the above , according to Greq P, put the operational status of ta 152 in the same category with P51h !!! An aircraft that never came close ,not only to to a ww2 battle front, but ANY battlefront. Even in Korea Usaaf chose the p51D ! ( And answers the question if the p51h could be considered the best all around piston engined fighter)

My choise would be F4u-e or ta152 if operational status is required. Otherwise ,in my opinion, the best all around piston engined fighter ever was the De Havilland Hornet. ( Do 335 also great but far too complicated)

Me-262 with Jumo004D engines is almost certainly the least expensive fighter on the list. Jet fuel is cheap too compared to high octane aviation gasoline.

Everything I have read suggests Me-262 had few bad flight habits. Tricycle landing gear makes take off and landing much easier.

Of course this is all pretty weird as we are using April 1945 aircraft during September 1939.

davebender said:

Me-262 with Jumo004D engines is almost certainly the least expensive fighter on the list.

Click to expand...

With a 25 - 100 hour engine life and an airframe loaded with dissimilar metals I think quite the opposite.

The Me 262 just might have problem if the Mission requires any real range.

I am also having a bit of difficulty following how the P-47 at 10,000lbs empty was big and expensive that only the US could afford it but the 8360lb empty weight 262 is the cheapest plane on the list.

The 51H is in the discussion - but not every combatant would necessarily have it in their top three.

For example, Britain, the US were committed to having daylight bombing of strategic targets as part of their warfare strategy but only the US was able to sustain the strategy to the very end. Would Great Britain have continued given a long range fighter escort capability? Would Japan or even Germany with so many demands on limited resources have pursued the expensive long range bomber forces necessary?

The USSR was confronted with battlefield air superiority dominating their thinking but had to develop some high altitude capability against German intrusions, so where would they have decided to compromise. So, with Germany which drove attributes such as dive bombing capability for otherwise sound designs like the He 177.

The US based on doctrine (land based) was committed early so the choices require long range as part of the top specification requirements - that whittles the list down significantly - with P-51H and P-47N at the top of the range list, followed by the P-38J/L and then the F4U.

How would Germany, Japan and Italy rethink their air war doctrine with a fighter of very high maneuverability combined with very long range been available?

For Britain, the Spitfire was almost a national symbol - but RAF Bomber Command was never served well by the Spit or Tempest or Meteor. Imagine the possibilities created for RAF had they been gifted with a P-51H or even a P-47N with both Hi Lo capabilities but also the range to cover all targets bombed by Halifax and Lancaster?

dedalos said:

I am speechless after this post!!!! Flying in combat by an operational unit does not make it operational!!!!!

For my question and thesis the Ta 152H is part of the discussion.

stab and III/JG301 recieved the firts 152in 27/1/45. The pilots were trained in the NEW fighter and flew their First combat Mission on 2/3/45 with 12 aircraft.Then flew constantly combat until the end of april.
All the above , according to Greq P, put the operational status of ta 152 in the same category with P51h !!! An aircraft that never came close ,not only to to a ww2 battle front, but ANY battlefront. Even in Korea Usaaf chose the p51D ! ( And answers the question if the p51h could be considered the best all around piston engined fighter)

The P-51H was far more important to SAC as a.) it had much better performance than the P-51D and b.) there weren't enough to serve Strategic Air Command and the USAF in Korea. It wasn't about 'better', it was about 'available'. Both the 18th and 35th FBW were already in Japan when the war started and the Air National Guard units were dominated by P-51D and selected to go to Korea while the F-82 and F-51H stayed for both the nuclear SAC forces as well as long range ADC as jet aircraft slowly filled the slots for the future.

My choise would be F4u-e or ta152 if operational status is required. Otherwise ,in my opinion, the best all around piston engined fighter ever was the De Havilland Hornet. ( Do 335 also great but far too complicated)

Click to expand...

So, is that what you would select for the US land based aircraft to support Strategic, very long range operations - yet still perform long range recon - both high altitude as well as low level armed recon? and fighter bomber ops as well as interception - both short and long range?? If your choices for 1939 how would you shape your air power doctrine for the country of your choice?

No flying in combat does NOT make a plane operational. When new planes are released, they are generally taken to a development unit where the bugs are worked out and any practical suggested changes made before series production is made with the improvements so identified. This was and is done in ALL air forces, including the WWII German Luftwaffe ... at least until the war was all but lost. Then they flew whatever could be made to be armed and flyable.

In any sort of normal times, the Ta-152 would have been sent to a development unit and when it was made right, series production would begin. March - Sep 1945 was hardly a normal time for the Luftwaffe, and they did the best they could do with what they had available at the time. A stout effort and a very good aircraft in the Ta-152 (any version), but I certainly would never claim it to be a production aircraft. They only defivered about 43 in total operationallky. That is not a production aircraft. It had no type trained mechanics, no spare parts in the field and no supply line in sight for the parts when they were needed ... it was a last-ditch effort to put a superior plane into service to prolong the war in case something revolutionary could be done to effect a turnaround.

I don't consider the P-51H or the F8F Bearcat to be WWII production either, even though we were flying them here in the USA for quite some time. They had only barely been passed on from development units when the war ended. The Douglas Skyraider actually flew first in AMrch of 1945, but I would not consider it a WWII type, though it's development roots are firmly in WWII.

My opinion is not anything anti-German, it has to do with real deployment of combat-ready and well-tested aircraft to the regular forces. We (USA) had some great planes in the development pipe just as the Germans did, and pretty much everyone else too, but they didn't make the conflict in a meaningful sense.

Of course, this IS Drgondog's thread and if he allows it, I'll accept that and go back to wanting my air force based on the P-51H which was delivered in higher numbers to WWII service units than the Ta-152 ever was. Since the Ta-152 and P-51H never met one another, nobody can say which one might have fared better in combat, but I certainly would not kick at being assigned either plane, assuming the Ta-152's came with spare parts and were maintainable. These traits (being maintainable and wirh spares available) were never shown in their brief operational careers. They certainly showed real promise and exhibited sparkling performance whe they were running right, but they never delivered on the promise.

That's one reason I'd LOVE to see one restored to flying status, to see how it holds up. One of our P-51D's at the Planes of Fame, Spam Can,has been onerational since 1950 and flies very regularly. In all that time the longest it has been down is 3 months when the rear fuselage had to be repaired due to cracked bulkheads. That says a lot for the reliability and longevity of the aircraft and systems and I'd welcome some long-term reliability data for the Ta-152, or an Fw 190D model of any particular dash number. The standard WWII Fw 190's had good service characteristics, but not particularly a good time between overhaul (TBO). The only data I have seen suggest less than 200 hours TBO on average and I saw some data that suggested a much shorter TBO. I do NOT know how valid either set of data were, but the TBO didn't seem to affect wartime availability or their effectiveness, so the Fw 190 remains one of my favorite WWII fighters, particularly the Fw 190D series.

If I were the USSR I would be tempted to pick the Me 262. Limits escort role severely but all the other bases are covered.. For US and Britain it would be F7F or P-51H or F4U-1 because of the escort range requirements with F7F deficient in VLR escort, for Japan the F7F, for Germany the F7F or Ta 152H, for Italy the F7F, for Commonwealth the f4U-4 or F7F.

I like the F7F very much for multi role including night fighter, long range anti shipping, recon, air fighter and fighter bomber.

You just have one to pick, development is frozen, operational problems encountered stay with you and represent downside to your choice. These are opinion free for all's but to have one fighter be your Air Power/Force projection fighter- top speed or range isn't necessarily the best choice as you go country by country in your consideration.

GregP said:

In any sort of normal times, the Ta-152 would have been sent to a development unit and when it was made right, series production would begin. March - Sep 1945 was hardly a normal time for the Luftwaffe, and they did the best they could do with what they had available at the time. A stout effort and a very good aircraft in the Ta-152 (any version), but I certainly would never claim it to be a production aircraft. They only defivered about 43 in total operationallky. That is not a production aircraft. It had no type trained mechanics, no spare parts in the field and no supply line in sight for the parts when they were needed ... it was a last-ditch effort to put a superior plane into service to prolong the war in case something revolutionary could be done to effect a turnaround.
.

Click to expand...

Actually Greg it did get run through a Erprobungskommando (a whopping 50 hours of testing) and then on the JG 301 where about 15 were operated before the war was over, so by definition of at least the Luftwaffe process of fielding combat aircraft the Ta 152 was operational, even though in numbers that were micro miniscule compared to some of the other aircraft in this discussion.

GregP said:

.........
In any sort of normal times, the Ta-152 would have been sent to a development unit and when it was made right, series production would begin.
..........

Click to expand...

Certainly Greg, but some people here seem to take the mass building of an airplane rather lightly, by my personal point of view.

So, it has to be said for those people that one thing is to build a dozen or so items, an affair that a couple of hundreds of skilled labour can do practically by hand, another is a mass production.

After a succesful testing of the said dozen or so hand made new airplanes, then, having optimized the construction metods for mass production, having made thousands of drawings of the slightest detail, having ordered all the necessary aluminium exstrusions in quantity, having had a deal with hundreds of subcontractors, having made all the toolings necessary for a mass production, having instructed the manpower, all these things done a mass production of an airplane can begin.....

GregP said:

...In any sort of normal times, the Ta-152 would have been sent to a development unit and when it was made right, series production would begin. March - Sep 1945 was hardly a normal time for the Luftwaffe, and they did the best they could do with what they had available at the time. A stout effort and a very good aircraft in the Ta-152 (any version), but I certainly would never claim it to be a production aircraft. They only defivered about 43 in total operationallky. That is not a production aircraft. It had no type trained mechanics, no spare parts in the field and no supply line in sight for the parts when they were needed ... it was a last-ditch effort to put a superior plane into service to prolong the war in case something revolutionary could be done to effect a turnaround.

Click to expand...

Well, the Luftwaffe sure intended it to be a full production aircraft. The problem was, production delays courtesy of BC and the USAAF kind of threw a wrench in their plans...

Several other types suffered the same fate: the Ho229's factory was over-run with the first production airframes in various stages of completion, the Ar234's factory was over-run by Red Army forces, disrupting Arado's projected 500 units delivered by November 1945. And the list goes on.

The fact that they did develope and complete that many Ta152s that late in the war and send them to forward units was actually impressive.

For the purposes of this discussion - pick any aircraft you choose so long as it was in serial production prior to VJ Day. And cut the Ta 152, Do 335 and He 162 debate to whether or not you want any of the fighters (just one) as your core land based air fighter/jack of all trades..

But tell me what your airpower doctrine will be with this wonderful fighter available for you to build upon.

I am having a hard time choosing! The P-47M, F4U-4N, F7F, or Tempest II are all good choices. The P-47N is good for VLR operations and carries a good load, but isn't the best overall. The P-51H had good performance, but from what I have read, had weak landing gear and high pressure tires, which would limit it to hard surfaces. The La-7 earlier Yak-3s were partially made of wood, so may not last for the duration.

I think it was impressive too, Graugeist.

However, early combat for the Ta 152 was in April 1945 and VE day was 8 May 1945.

So, basically, they delivered 43 aircraft of which 2 were oeprational at the end of the war, both Ta 152C's if the data I read were accurate. That's 41 Ta 152's that couldn't fight and stay operational for more than a month. Doesn't say much for the wonderbird's ruggedness ... or else it offers an insight into trying to operate what is basically a prototype aircraft in field conditions whilw a war was ending without spare parts and short on fuel as well.

I don't think the Ta-152 was a bad design at all. I think it was a great bird that never got the kinks worked out before being rendered impotent by lack of spare parts while being stalked by enemies, often at the ratio of 1000-to-1. So it exhibited credible and even sparkling performancewhile making no difference to the war at all.

None of that says it was a waste of time or effort, but had it been oeprational a year earlier, it might have DONE something. My inclination is to limit the choices to aircrft that were widely used in combat and so had a legitimate claim to being a player in the war. The Ta 152 is not the only late-war possible to not make thath status. Both sides and several manufacturers had some planes that can make the same claim.

The P-850 was operational during the WWII timeframe, but squadron service in the USA wasn't exactly the same as beiung deployed in combat. The P-51H and Douglas Skyraider were also not deployed in combat use. Neither was the Grumman F7F. All were firmly based in WWII technology and thinking, and all were impressive. But just because the Do 335 could make a good turn of speeds and run away from ALlied fighters didn't make it a war contributor, either. The Natter was impressive but I'd decline an offer to fly one.

Still, if Bill permits these choice in his thread, I have no problem with that. It IS his question and he is trying to stimulate a brisk discussion, which I seem to be interrupting. If that's what it takes to get the discussion, then by all means include whatever planes are imagined. There will be no objection from me except academically, and I already stated those thoughts. No point in rehashing it ad nausium.

I'll stick with the good old P-51H as a good plane to build my air force around. If more than one type were to be allowed, I'd take almost any other good plane, including the Soviet Lavochkin La-7. In fact, there are probably 8 - 12 or more types that would suffice for a second choice.

drgondog said:

So, is that what you would select for the US land based aircraft to support Strategic, very long range operations - yet still perform long range recon - both high altitude as well as low level armed recon? and fighter bomber ops as well as interception - both short and long range?? If your choices for 1939 how would you shape your air power doctrine for the country of your choice?

Click to expand...

Well, First of all i must say that my judgment will be only if we consider fuel of same quality. Otherwise the axis aircraft can not be competitive
So
Bf 109 K4 great performer, little fuel, small wing, vulnerable for cas. Eliminated
Fw 190D Lack of altitude performance, High wing loading,medium range. Eliminated
Ki 84. Possibly the best aerial superiority fighter in low/medium altitudes. Lack of altitude performance.Not armored enough for cas.Eliminated
Me 262. Its a jet. I will leave it out of this comparison.
Yak3. Very little fuel, no armor, weak landing gear,no altitude performance and,and,and...Eliminated
La7. somewhat better than yak 3 but still a very specialized aircraft. Eliminated
F8F Average Fuel, short wings,but above all suspect wing strength. Also a specialized machine.Eliminated
P47N Good all around choise but expentive. Also despite impressive level speed i dont believe that could dogfight as well at low/medium altitude( against the excellent oppononents we compare in this thread)Eliminated
Spitfire XIV 21. Short range and too vulnerable for cas.Eliminated
Tempest V Also a good all around choise but his performance is not as impresive at altitude as at low level
F4U-4 Excellent all around choise but rather expensive and some pilots did not like its landing behavior. And finally i would prefer a inline water cooled engined over
a radial
P51H . Impressive performer although ,personally, i dont believe the 487 mph claim. Top range, good roc, good agility. However the P51d , both in ww2 and in korea, showed vulnerability as a ground attack aircraft.Also its armament rather light against heavy bombers. It was not possible to recieve a higher capacity engine(Griffon) I leave it in second place along F4U-4

I choose Ta 152H. Although a compromised design( instead of the entirely NEW Ta153 , the 152 was based on a8 fuselage) overall is Top.
Designed to excell at extreme altitudes was still able to dogfight Yaks and tempests at low altitude even using inferior fuel and no ADI
Pressurized cocpit, Auto pilot, all weather equipment,Iff, excellent radios, heavy ( perhaps too heavy) armament placed on or Near the cental axis, 150 kgr of armor, armored oil cooler in the nose,. MW50,GM1 ,two stage 3 speed supercgarger gave good performance at all altitudes. Enough space for cameras (there was rhe recce version)
Not as great range as p51 but with the wing tanks ,600 litre external tank and the High fuel efficient jumo 213 and High aspect wings was pretty good in range.
Boosted ailerons would restore some of the lost rate of rall. Wing PROFILE that gave good control at High angle of attack.
A fuselage that had been proved strong for cas missions. However only a bomb rack. Available rockets doth for Air to Air and Air to ground work. And of course, as all Fws, the lowest pilot work load of all ww2 fighters. Finally able to recieve the db603or even the jumo 222.
The Ta was Near or at the Top at every category. so its my choise ( i repeat given equal fuels)

Still the Hornet was even better and even prettier

Tempest: big, fast, tough, heavily armed, maneuverable. Great climb, high mach number. Good ordnance load for GA work. Great cockpit view. Nice wide-track undercarriage for forward airstrips.

And still enormous development potential, which is important. The Tempest's perceived niche as a low-altitude fighter was down to the engine specification - nothing about the Tempest itself or indeed the Sabre engine mandated this role. The Tempest was also probably the most accepting of different engines of any fighter type (can you get three more diverse engines than Sabre, Griffon and Centaurus?), so if you decided that the Sabre really wasn't going to cut it at 30000 ft, then a Griffon installation had already been engineered.

dedalos said:

Still the Hornet was even better and even prettier

Click to expand...

Seconded

dedalos said:

F4U-4 Excellent all around choise but rather expensive and some pilots did not like its landing behavior

Click to expand...

Expensive? Cheaper than a twin!