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

OK, my two planes will be the P-51H for air superiority, escort and photo-recon duty with the F4U-4 Corsair as the supporting player. The corsair can carry a lot of bombs and will be escorted by other F4U-4's armed for air-to-air missions. They can split the remaining missions as assets permit. They can even sortie together.

For my strategic bombers I'd take the B-29 fitted with Allison V-3420 engines (B-39's). Fast and a real load hauler. For a supporting medium bomber, I'd take the A-26 Invader.

As for the P-51H, I'd opt for four 20 mm cannons, since this is a what-if, and would have a mix of cannon and MG-armed P-51H models. Since I cna hve these in 1939, I want at least 8,500 fighters and 2,500 bombers at that time. and I'd deploy them in July 1939 to the UK, with their agreement, of course, and dare the Germans to start the war. The dare would be a 2,000 P-51Hs and 1,000 B-39's overflying Berlin in late July 1944, when they would drop leaflets asking the Germans to cease and desist or war would follow immediately ... answer expected over radio Berlin by 6:00 pm that day, their choice. No answer means war the next day.

Nobody had radar and the aircraft spotter force was also not un swing yet, so I'm quite sure it could be done. Then, slightly before that time, say, one or two days, you sail the Royal Navy in total for a visit to the German fleet's home port, and I mean ALL the ships. Buy few beers and be friendly, then sail home and invitge them to come for a visit to enjoy some English beer. Ask them to bring Bratwurst for the party.

All in all it might put the thing off entirely or at LEAST until you HAD radar and other improvements.

KiwiBiggles said:

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.

Click to expand...

So which air force does it best suit - with possible missions of long range escort, anti shipping, interception, close air support? Does it fit all?

GregP said:

OK, my two planes will be the P-51H for air superiority, escort and photo-recon duty with the F4U-4 Corsair as the supporting player. The corsair can carry a lot of bombs and will be escorted by other F4U-4's armed for air-to-air missions. They can split the remaining missions as assets permit. They can even sortie together.

For my strategic bombers I'd take the B-29 fitted with Allison V-3420 engines (B-39's). Fast and a real load hauler. For a supporting medium bomber, I'd take the A-26 Invader.

As for the P-51H, I'd opt for four 20 mm cannons, since this is a what-if, and would have a mix of cannon and MG-armed P-51H models. Since I cna hve these in 1939, I want at least 8,500 fighters and 2,500 bombers at that time. and I'd deploy them in July 1939 to the UK, with their agreement, of course, and dare the Germans to start the war. The dare would be a 2,000 P-51Hs and 1,000 B-39's overflying Berlin in late July 1944, when they would drop leaflets asking the Germans to cease and desist or war would follow immediately ... answer expected over radio Berlin by 6:00 pm that day, their choice. No answer means war the next day.

Nobody had radar and the aircraft spotter force was also not un swing yet, so I'm quite sure it could be done. Then, slightly before that time, say, one or two days, you sail the Royal Navy in total for a visit to the German fleet's home port, and I mean ALL the ships. Buy few beers and be friendly, then sail home and invitge them to come for a visit to enjoy some English beer. Ask them to bring Bratwurst for the party.

All in all it might put the thing off entirely or at LEAST until you HAD radar and other improvements.

Click to expand...

Can't pick two. Pick one and build your airpower strategy.

It's easier for me to pick from here

dedalos said:

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

Click to expand...

All aircraft with liquid cooled engine might be in disadvantage for the CAS, hence also the P-51H and Ta-152 would be elliminated. But I agree that Germany, along with US and UK have better horses to bet on.

Fw 190D Lack of altitude performance, High wing loading,medium range. Eliminated

Click to expand...

The Fw-190Ds with 2-stage engines were great performers (D-11 - D-13). The wing tanks were to be installed as a Rustsatz for the D-13, the full name being Fw-190D-13/R-5 (or D13/R5) in that case. So very much a contender.

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

Click to expand...

Depends. The P-47N does not need to have all 560 gals of fuel aboard, depending on the mission. Can manuver well even with full tanks, unlike the aircraft that have full rear tanks (LR Spit, Mustangs). BTW, we don't know what power was available when operating on 150 grade fuel, 2800 HP was on 130 grade + WI.

Spitfire XIV 21. Short range and too vulnerable for cas.Eliminated

Click to expand...

Lets not discount the old good Spit, too. Max fuel with rear tanks was more than 200 US gals. The full rear tanks prevent substantial manuvering, though.

Tempest V Also a good all around choise but his performance is not as impresive at altitude as at low level

Click to expand...

The Tempest received fuel 'upgrade' in late 1944, some 190 imp gals was capacity with second LE tank installed. Both for the Mk.II and V. The Tempest II might be a better choice than V? The Tempest VI (with Sabre V) should be a tad better at all altitudes, though.

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

Click to expand...

Radial is good for CAS!
The landing behavior is a long-cured issue, and non-issue for land-based operations. Not enough range, though, if we compare it with P-47N and P-51H, that should be also faster on same oct fuel.
Not that expensive, however. P-47 was the pricey one

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

Click to expand...

Good points, though I don't think it was that vulnerable for CAS?

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)

Click to expand...

Indeed, the Ta-152 was great aircraft; the Ta-152C was the one with 'too heavy' a battery, though. The P-47N will come atop when it comes down to combat radius and suitability for CAS and anti-shipping tasks, though. We cxan also note that weight does influence speed, not only RoC; the speed figures available on the Williams' site are for the Ta-152s are true when only half of fuel is on board.

Still the Hornet was even better and even prettier

Click to expand...

Great aircraft indeed.

Gents,

Here is my ever present two cents worth. If they year is 1939, and we get the 1945 technology it would be a bit of a toss up between the P51H, the Me262, and a Fw-190D13/Ta-152. The balance to me would be how many of what I would have at the "fights on", versus what my opponent has. I know from history that things will improve for the jet engine, and the Griffon is a player as an upgrade to the Merlin, and the German "over engineering" will prove useful (all the toys that the Fw190D13/Ta-152 has).

However, I think the trip line would be I could make any of them work if I had a fleet of Enola Gays. Fights on, BOOM, Knock it off. As long as I could the get my Superforts over bad guy land, I could bring him to his knees in short order.

Without the Superforts or the "bomb", the one thing I will need is air superiority. With that I can negate my opponents offensive capability, and at a time and place of my choosing establish air superiority over his country.

In the end, with the long ranged piston fighters, I could base my aircraft far enough to the rear to prevent air attack by jets, or give me time to react to incoming enemy prop driven fighters.

I would go with the P-51H over the Fw / Ta due only to it being more of a "known" commodity. I believe I could play the war / chess game with that one type to a end state of winning. However, should the war drag on my advantage would erode as the jet obviously has more "growth" potential.

Cheers,
Biff

FLYBOYJ said:

Maintainability, logistics and operational costs. Are the advantages worth it? It would be interesting to see a Bearcat and this aircraft in a tight in dogfight,

Click to expand...

Flyboy are speaking of an engagement between the Bearcat and the Do335? If so the F8F would own it in a turning fight. Too much mass on the end of the lever arms in the case of the Do. However, if they used it with hit and run tactics it would fair much better with it's higher top speed.

Cheers,
Biff

dedalos said:

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)

Click to expand...

Dedalos,

Yes the USAF chose the P51D for Korea. The thing to think about is why. There were only 555 P51Hs built, while there were literally thousands of D models about. Think like UPS (logistics). Why would I bring a limited production aircraft into theater, with it's limited parts availability? Answer, in my opinion, is I wouldn't. Bringing in the D was a more practical decision in the long run. I'm sure going in the experienced guys from WW2 new it would suffer in the ground attack role, and like WW2 numbers are a strength all it's own.

Cheers,
Biff

So far, many have dwelled on the performance attributes along the lines of 'Best Fighter'. What I was looking for was an occasional breakdown of a particular Nation State that began the War with a set of assets and training that suited their national objectives and strength.

When Germany entered the war in 1939 they had the strongest and most capable air force, a very strong army that became perhaps the best army until 1943 - The surface navy and power projection capability wasn't very impressive as a force to deal with GB and France and the U Boat capability was understrength but formidable. What could they do with their choice of the best fighters available in six years?

They needed CAS, they needed interceptors against the RAF and France and ultimately the USSR to shield the ground forces - and deny strategic bombing. They needed capability against surface fleets in one form or another. They were not Resource abundant so they needed force leverage in the weapons they pursued.

The questions I would ask are: What is the value of really long range air superiority for Germany given the bomber forces and the range capabilities that existed? What does Germany have today (1939) to attack shipping and warships to deny GB and France access to my ports and U Boat pens? Does Germany have the ability to deny their enemies access of air power over its ground forces. The Bf 109 existed, was near top if not top interceptor and local air superiority, but less suitable as CAS and limited with respect to load and firepower. The Me 110 was potentially sound to attack surface shipping, but other wise second rate as an air superiority fighter or long range escort.

Choices to augment national mission? Multi role CAS with excellent firepower, performance and load carrying capability with medium range but superior to Me 110 and far superior to Bf 109. Hi/Lo altitude agility and speed in fighter vs fighter, capable/superior night fighter role to provide day/night interception and bomber destroyer.

F7F comes to mind with exceptional match to the above description with added benefit of twin radials for CAS, ability to carry torpedo and or/large bomb load and tremendous firepower.

Me 262 comes to mind but shed the torpedo/surface warship attack capability per F7F but is THE best air superiority aircraft, night/day fighter, armament package with 57mm or 4x30mm or 4x20mm plus heavy external bomb load and twin turbines to increase small arm survivability in CAS role. It would kill tanks and any vehicle - air or ground - that it encounters. Ability to use diesel and other distillates as fuel increases flexibility for fuel supply.

Significant weakness is acquisition of critical materials for the Jumo type engine turbine blades and other high temp components.

I don't think I would even consider any other weapons system given Germany's battle doctrine

The FW 190 series basically mirrors the 262 but 100 mph slower.

Bill, re. anti-shipping - The P-47N, armed with two 1600 lbs AP bombs should be very capable to seriously harm a capital ship. And that at longer range than the F7F (560+1x110 gals for one R-2800, vs. 426+2x150 gals for two engines), all while not worrying with problems of the pre-1943 (pre-1944?) US torpedo.

I'd have to go with the F4U Corsair here. Payload similar, can pick from 6x .50 or 4 x 20mm, even carrier usable if need be though perhaps not carrier friendly. Climbs better, is a bit faster.

A little bit cheaper as well.

tomo pauk said:

Bill, re. anti-shipping - The P-47N, armed with two 1600 lbs AP bombs should be very capable to seriously harm a capital ship. And that at longer range than the F7F (560+1x110 gals for one R-2800, vs. 426+2x150 gals for two engines), all while not worrying with problems of the pre-1943 (pre-1944?) US torpedo.

Click to expand...

True Tomo. The P-47N is a solid choice for multi role and far out ranges the F7F. Having said that Germany was never serious about long range strategic capability and to me both the P-51H and P-47N were somewhat wasted for highest and best use - namely being superior to competitive against all conventional fighters on the list 700 miles from home.

I like the 262 first because the most important campaigns for Germany when they had a chance to win it were BoB and Russia. As I thought through the list the 262 kept rising to the surface because it would a.) dominate the air against all the rest of the list, b.) provide multi role night fighter/day fighter/CAS and the near same iron bomb capability as P-47N in terms of glide bombing (neither at all suited for dive bombing role), c.) weapons package ranging from 57mm HV gun for anti armor and hard point ground targets to 30mm for same, to 20mm and rockets.

Its limitation was range but not critical for either of those two campaigns when compared to Bf 109 for example. RAF Fighter Command has no chance to maintain parity against the 262 and the RN has no chance in the Channel or North Sea or Bay of Biscay to fight off GAF for the same reasons.

The F7F was my second choice because the footprint was much greater than the Me 262, and it had even more versatility save the big caliber gun capability. It was highly regarded as an air fighter by the USN and had significantly better air to air capability than P-38.

I didn't list the Mossie but it deserves consideration save for limited capability air to air against most of the list and if the choices presented can't maintain control of the air (high and low) why would you want it in 1939 if your opponent has one of the other picks?

So, the question is - would you place the P-47N at the top of your list for Germany in 1939?

For the Me 262 to work fine vs. RAF and Russia, it need to have a great combat radius and engines suitable for long range missions. I doubt that was the case for the Me-262 and Jumo jet engines of ww2. Do we also assume the LW has the 1945 radar set in 1939 - if not, the Allied bombers can visit the airbases during the night.
The LW have had air superiority in Russia maybe until late 1943, the Me 262 will have nothing to add there. The LW needs, from late 1941 on, a real long range bomber to destroy the Tankograd, Baku oil fileds and like - the Me 262 does not bring anything to the table there. LW needs the LR fighter from 1940 to 1943 (and modern, big fast LR bomber) much more than the Allied needed the B-17/24 and Merlin Mustangs.
The Me 262 in escort of the bombers - if it adheres to the close escort dogma, it becomes a sitting duck, unable to quickly accelerate from 250 mph. Will it do the 'fast' escort, essing while doing it - eats too much in the range. Still a problem of acceleration from 300-350 mph, a decent 1945 fighter will kill it in the meantime.

The P-47N is/was a known quality for the long range work. No need for that, but we're awaiting the inbound enemy? Okay, we won't fill the wing tanks, or maybe go for just 200 gals plus a drop tank or two. Me 262 are escorting enemy bombers? We can concentrate all P-47Ns against the attack, not the case for the shorter range 262. No hi-tech enemy fighters around? Bomb up the Thunderbolt, so it can hit a factory, supply dump or a ship (600 miles away?), or attach rockets on it for Army support.

Just one thought to all this - The ME-109 was one of the most inexpensive fighters around. I've not seen a comparison of ME-109's to P-47's though, of anyone has the info it would be helpful.

But how many ME109's can one put in the air for a P-47? Perhaps Germany did have the best plane for the Job when cost is factored in.

Not on the original list, but was available 1945 - Sea Fury, excellent armament, good range, radial engine so robust for ground pounding. Had option for on board radar - so very capable for day or night ops.

The often-touted best fighter of the 1940 was incapable to wrestle the control of the air from RAF in the BoB. Not all of it due to it, though.
Maybe we can look it this way: what the force of, say, 500 P-47s offer, and then look at what we need to build in order to equal the capabilities of that fleet. Instead of having eg. 700 Bf-109s and 300 Bf-110s, the fleet of the 500 P-47Ns would've swept the skies above UK, not just above Kent. Not just due the raw performance, but also due to 30+ seconds of heavy firing duration (more with 1940 generation of BMGs) and 1000 mile radius (not range).
All while cutting the crew needed by factor of 3.

tomo pauk said:

For the Me 262 to work fine vs. RAF and Russia, it need to have a great combat radius and engines suitable for long range missions. I doubt that was the case for the Me-262 and Jumo jet engines of ww2. Do we also assume the LW has the 1945 radar set in 1939 - if not, the Allied bombers can visit the airbases during the night.

No assumptions regarding future technology. Having said that the range of the Me 262 is excellent when compared to other 1939 fighters so in 1939 the 262 is not deficient. Second, nobody has the technology to a.) bomb at night or defend at night in 1939. What the 262 airframe and variants of 1945 provide in 1939 is the instang ability to install and deploy the new systems as they become available.


The LW have had air superiority in Russia maybe until late 1943, the Me 262 will have nothing to add there. The LW needs, from late 1941 on, a real long range bomber to destroy the Tankograd, Baku oil fileds and like - the Me 262 does not bring anything to the table there. LW needs the LR fighter from 1940 to 1943 (and modern, big fast LR bomber) much more than the Allied needed the B-17/24 and Merlin Mustangs.


Agreed - but the 262 would be virtually unstoppable in all projected roles which gives the LW the planning flexibility to take different directions regarding the role of airpower on the international stage. By the time the Barbarossa is launched, if launched, the 1945 Me 262 has two years of operations and further development behind it. Conceivably Germany conquers Britain if the 262 destroys RAF Fighter Command over both France and Britain - further providing operational flexibility in Russia. Even if the British invasion fails or never attempted, the RAF should never seriously threaten Germany. Ditto US Airpower.

GaryT - the Me 262 is probably at least three times as expensive as the Bf 109 to build and speculatively 2X+ to operate. The cost of pilot and crew training should be near equal. But would you rather have one Me 262 or five Bf 109s from a force multiplier perspective - and from the context of multi role - one Me 262 or a mix of Bf 109 plus two Me 110's?

The Me 262 in escort of the bombers - if it adheres to the close escort dogma, it becomes a sitting duck, unable to quickly accelerate from 250 mph. Will it do the 'fast' escort, essing while doing it - eats too much in the range. Still a problem of acceleration from 300-350 mph, a decent 1945 fighter will kill it in the meantime.

Don't apply recip engine tactics to a fighter with nearly 2X speed of the fighters you wish to kill. Sweep and destroy and let the bombers follow. As far as bombers - why not 'Be the bomber" and let your opponents try to stop you. In 1939 your max tactical radius is probably 200-250 miles with a 1 KG bomb load. Do you think two years of development yields tip tanks, external mid air refueling options and other variations to extend range another 100 miles by 1941? Maybe/Maybe not - but France based airfields give the 262 to range to go to most important British targets from 1940 onward.

The P-47N is/was a known quality for the long range work. No need for that, but we're awaiting the inbound enemy? Okay, we won't fill the wing tanks, or maybe go for just 200 gals plus a drop tank or two. Me 262 are escorting enemy bombers? We can concentrate all P-47Ns against the attack, not the case for the shorter range 262. No hi-tech enemy fighters around? Bomb up the Thunderbolt, so it can hit a factory, supply dump or a ship (600 miles away?), or attach rockets on it for Army support.

Click to expand...

The P-47N is a good choice. I like the 262 more as a.) immediate short and medium range air superiority, b.) future development potential and not only stay ahead of all others except the Meteor, but accelerate capability because all the others are limited to .6-67 M as upper threshold of speed, c.) existing hard point capability on the wing - easily convertible to external fuel tanks or bombs or both, d.) wide range of armament to fill everything from Very heavy Bomber destruction to strafing af light and medium armor to shipping to infantry.

GaryT - the Me 262 is probably at least three times as expensive as the Bf 109 to build and speculatively 2X+ to operate. The cost of pilot and crew training should be near equal. But would you rather have one Me 262 or five Bf 109s from a force multiplier perspective - and from the context of multi role - one Me 262 or a mix of Bf 109 plus two Me 110's?

Click to expand...

That is the one issue that is hard to quantify. By having a superior aircraft, you are also helping ensure crew survivability. And with 1/2 of the aircraft, your cost of training is substantially lower (both in fuel and manpower). The question is, when is the quality of the aircraft overtaken by as J Stalin would say, quality of numbers? And I guess what I am asking, to which there is perhaps no real answer, is when would the luftwaffe get to the point that engagements are substantially more dangerous due to being outnumbered?

Hi, Bill,

No assumptions regarding future technology. Having said that the range of the Me 262 is excellent when compared to other 1939 fighters so in 1939 the 262 is not deficient. Second, nobody has the technology to a.) bomb at night or defend at night in 1939. What the 262 airframe and variants of 1945 provide in 1939 is the instang ability to install and deploy the new systems as they become available.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. In 1939, Poland will be conquered by the Germans and Soviets, regardless who currently owns the Me 262(or any other aircraft from the post #1 here) - no changes vs. historical events of that year.

Agreed - but the 262 would be virtually unstoppable in all projected roles which gives the LW the planning flexibility to take different directions regarding the role of airpower on the international stage. By the time the Barbarossa is launched, if launched, the 1945 Me 262 has two years of operations and further development behind it. Conceivably Germany conquers Britain if the 262 destroys RAF Fighter Command over both France and Britain - further providing operational flexibility in Russia. Even if the British invasion fails or never attempted, the RAF should never seriously threaten Germany. Ditto US Airpower.

Click to expand...

Declaring that we can now improve the Me 262 mid-war by engines available from late 1940s changes the goal post substantially.

Any fighter from the post #1 can destroy the RAF in 1940, provided the Germans don't do something stupid, of course. The even faster Me 262 does not solve the German problem there - the LW cannot touch the factories the Soviets moved East.

Don't apply recip engine tactics to a fighter with nearly 2X speed of the fighters you wish to kill. Sweep and destroy and let the bombers follow.

Click to expand...

Why would the defender bother to put it's fighters in the air vs. the radar contacts that do 400-450 mph on fast cruise? That would be the fighters, not the bombers, and RAF's ground controllers proved in the BoB as capable to discern between heavily defended small number of bombers (=a trap) vs. the lightly defended main bomber stream. By the same token, the RAF in 1941 tried fighter sweeps employing like 20 fighters per one bomber; bombers serving as a bait - LW was not willing to play their game. Defender can wait for the radar contacts that make 200 mph and concentrate on those, by then the jets will be on their way to home.

As far as bombers - why not 'Be the bomber" and let your opponents try to stop you. In 1939 your max tactical radius is probably 200-250 miles with a 1 KG bomb load. Do you think two years of development yields tip tanks, external mid air refueling options and other variations to extend range another 100 miles by 1941? Maybe/Maybe not - but France based airfields give the 262 to range to go to most important British targets from 1940 onward.

Click to expand...

Again, tip tanks and mid-air refueling change the goal post quite a bit. The 350 miles radius will not cut it vs. Soviet factories.
The Me 262, as-is, will have weaker capabilities for anti-shipping, as a bomber and as ground-pounder (CAS) than the P-47N.

In my opinion, the ONE best fighter for Allied use throughout the war must have five characteristics. One, it must be competitive in air-to-air combat from SL to 35k + ft (there may be some high altitude fighters/bombers developed). Two, sufficient internal fuel volume must be provided to allow for long range escort. Three, it must have formidable air to ground capability. Four it must be producible in large quantities. And five, it must be able to be flown effectively by an average level of pilot expertise. In effect, I'm looking for a WW2 version of the F-4 Phantom II, in other words, great at nothing, but good at many things. Something you can throw into brawl, and come out maybe bloodied but good enough to let well trained and aggressive pilots to come out victorious.
On looking at the list, most fall short of the range requirement (the Bf109K-4 barely had enough fuel to climb up and return to base). This limited the choice to the American aircraft, which typically were designed for longer ranges and ditto with the Japanese aircraft. However the Ki-84 is light and has very poor load carrying capacity, which would make it unacceptable for air-to-ground support. In my opinion, that leaves four aircraft, the P-38L, P-47N, P-51H, and the F4U-4 (modified to include wing tanks like the dash 1, only protected). The P-38L would probably had a major impact had it been introduced earlier. However it would require greater effort and talent to master. It also is very complex and expensive.

It would be hard to find a more capable fighter below 25k than the P-51H. It is blazingly fast, highly maneuverable, and has long legs. However, it is built to lower "g" loads than the D and has only a moderate load carrying capacity which could limit it ground support role and, of course, that infamous, and debatable, liquid cooled vulnerability. It is cheap and easy to build.

That leaves the two big radials, the P-47N and the F4U-4, both noted for their ruggedness and power. The heavier P-47 would suffer some maneuvering capability at low to medium altitudes to the F4U (reinstalling and reengineering wings tanks to get range would mitigate this weight advantage a bit). However, the weakness of the F4U compared to the P-47 is, surprisingly, the same engine, the R-2800, or rather how it is implemented. While the lighter F4U maintains a slightly better power to weight ratio at SL, at fighter weight for both, it starts to lose that at 5k at an increasing rate, and, at 25k, the P-47N has a 1000 hp advantage, that's a lotta horses. It only gets worse than that as the P-47 engine is flat rated at 2800 hp up to 33k, a power no other single engine WW2 fighter can approach. Another P-47N advantage is its tremendous lifting power. Its Max gross weight to empty weight is an incredible 10,700 lbs (more than the empty weight of the F4U-4), almost twice that of the F4U-4 (5465 lbs), and it is even better than the slightly later AD-1/2/3 (7522 lbs for the AD-1, the first model of the A-1). A note here, this is not weapons load alone, but includes fuels, pilot, etc, which tends to be a constant, so the argument that this is a weapons load advantage is valid. So I think both the P-47N and F4U-4 are superb aircraft and any airforce would want to have either. However, I think the P-47N comes closer to my requirements.


One. Air superiority. The P-47N, due to its powerful engine dominates the airspace above 25k with only the Ta-152H-1 clearly superior above about 39k. Below 25k there will be aircraft superior such as the P-51H, but again, its powerful engine and good performance will provide a good pilot the tools needed to win. With time to climb to 25k similar to both the P-51H and F4U-4, interception is good. Firepower was impressive.

Two. Long range escort. It was designed for this purpose.

Three. Ground support/interdiction. With great range, massive weapons carry capability, and proven ruggedness, it would be superb.

Producibility. Not an issue. May be more expensive than others but the P-47 was manufactured in more numbers than any other US fighter.

Ease of flying. The P-47 was not known for being difficult to fly and apparently is quite stable per Fighter Conference. The F4U was considered easier to control.

So, my selection for the "WW2 F-4 Phantom II" goes to the P-47N. Of course other opinions can be valid.

tomo pauk said:

Fair enough. In 1939, Poland will be conquered by the Germans and Soviets, regardless who currently owns the Me 262(or any other aircraft from the post #1 here) - no changes vs. historical events of that year.

Click to expand...

But would France fall if the RAF or the French Air force had the Me 262?

If France doesn't fall it reduces the need of a long range escort, in the ETO at least.

tomo pauk said:

Any fighter from the post #1 can destroy the RAF in 1940, provided the Germans don't do something stupid, of course. The even faster Me 262 does not solve the German problem there - the LW cannot touch the factories the Soviets moved East.

Click to expand...

True, if the RAF doesn't have any of those aircraft in the list.