best fighter of ww II

[the lancaster kicks ass]

what else is it then, a hot water bottle??

 

[Gemhorse]

I'll stick with the Mustang, it's record of service is exemplary, and besides, there are still alot flying today, yet another indicator of it's longetivity...- Also, my post on the German aircraft, of the 'would could-have-beens', in the finish, the Fw 190 series in entirety, must perhaps be the 'Best of German' aircraft...[includes the Ta 152, Erich...] - I just thought the others were very exciting concepts of their Time, and worthy of mention...particuarly the 'Gotha'.....

 

[Lightning Guy]

The Corsair could NOT outdive a P-38. The only thing that could hang with a P-38 in a dive is a P-47. Now, the P-38 did have a rather low critical mach number meaning that several aircraft had a higher terminal speed that the P-38. The P-38 accelerated so quickly that it was only in a prolonged dive from extremely high altitude (30,000 ft+) that anything other than a P-47 could hope to catch it.

Here is my reasoning against the Mustang. The only theatre in which it can be considered the top fighter is the ETO and as I have mentioned before it's role there has been overplayed. The P-38 was THE fighter in the MTO and the PTO and that's a matter of record. Additionally it served in the Carribean, the CBI, the Aleutians, and virtually anywere else the Americans were in the fight and was doing so long before the P-51 arrived on the scene.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's because the P-51 wasn't around at the time................

 

[Lightning Guy]

Early P-51s saw action in the MTO and the CBI and yet were considered inferior to the P-38. Now if an Allison engined P-38 was superior to an Allison engined P-51, and guesses on what a Merlin powered P-38 might have been like? But even after the P-51 was introduced the P-38 was still considered to be the fighter in the Pacific, was far more versatile, and could outperform the P-51 in virtually every category.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the P-38 was still considered to be the fighter in the Pacific

am i correct in thinking that was primarily for it's range??

 

[Lightning Guy]

Range and twin-engine reliability and in the Pacific those two cannot be overstated. You also have to remember that there were some very good P-38 pilots in the PTO and they had learned to use the P-38 with a great skill to the point that they could dogfight Zeros and Oscars.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but obviously not out turn them??

 

[Lightning Guy]

Well that depends. All things being equal, there was very little, if anything, that could out turn a Zero or Oscar. As the speed increased the P-38 could turn with both types. A pilot who knew how to handle a P-38 could use the Fowler flaps and even the dive flaps to suck the turn in even tighter and (I've heard) out-turn the Spit. Anyway, I've read of several P-38 pilots being able to handle either Japanese type in a dogfight.

 

[Maestro]

Well that depends. All things being equal, there was very little, if anything, that could out turn a Zero or Oscar. As the speed increased the P-38 could turn with both types. A pilot who knew how to handle a P-38 could use the Fowler flaps and even the dive flaps to suck the turn in even tighter and (I've heard) out-turn the Spit. Anyway, I've read of several P-38 pilots being able to handle either Japanese type in a dogfight.

I don't think ANY European/American craft could out-turn a Spit... MAY BE the P-38, with a GREAT pilot (and A LOT of luck) could out-turn a Mk. I... But never out-turn a Mk. IX or a Mk. XIV.

At least, that's my opinion.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I've not seen any official testing on the maneuverability of late model P-38s but a P-38F (without combat flaps) was shown to outturn a P-51. Here is a quote from the website Planes and Pilots of WWII (a very well researched site. "Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality." I'm willing to bet a P-38L could hang with either a Mk. IX or Mk. XIV.

 

[Erich]

hmmmmmmmm out turn anything the Luftwaffe had ? not sure about that in 1945. did they ever encountere the Dora ? The Tank, which I know they did not.........let's see it would have to be the 9th or the 15th AF correct with the P-38's ?

 

[Maestro]

I've not seen any official testing on the maneuverability of late model P-38s but a P-38F (without combat flaps) was shown to outturn a P-51. Here is a quote from the website Planes and Pilots of WWII (a very well researched site. "Especially the P-38 which could out-turn anything the Luftwaffe had and could give the Spitfire pilot pause to consider his own mortality." I'm willing to bet a P-38L could hang with either a Mk. IX or Mk. XIV.

It's not a miracle to out-turn a P-51. The Spitfire Mk. IX could out-turn a P-51 even when the Mustang was using his flaps. I've already posted/translated an comparison I took from a book between the P-51B and the Spitfire Mk. IX...

I'll find it and post it here again...

 

[Lightning Guy]

I've not seen any specific information on the maneuverability of the Dora but it seems to me it would have been similar to the 190A since weight and wing area remained relatively unchanged. The 152 should have been better but I'm not sure how much better. The 190's best asset was its roll rate and not its rate of turn. All of the P-38s had been phased out of the 8th before 1945 but they were still active with the 9th and 15th. Experience in both the ETO and the MTO had shown the P-38 to be able to out turn both the 109 and the 190. Col. Taylor (CO of the 14th FG, 15th AF, 1944) noted that the P-38 could outmaneuver anything 'friend or foe.' I'm not sure what models of the Spit were in the area but I know that the would have included at least through the Mk. V. The P-38 had several advantages over any single-engined aircraft in a turning fight.

 

[Maestro]

Ah ! Got it !

The comarison between the Sitfire Mk. IX and the P-51B.

"The comparison of those two plane is weird, because they had the same engine. [...]

The Mustang had a greater range than the Spitfire. Their fuel consumption were the same, but the P-51 was 32 km/h faster. With their engine "pushed at the limit", their speed was the same between 10,000 and 15,000 feet, and between 25,000 and 32,000 feet.

However, the Spitfire had a better climb rate, even against the P-51B at full trottle. But the Mustang needed less power to climb after diving.

In diving, the Mustang could desengage very quickly. With the same engine adjustments, the Spitfire needed more power to stay in formation. An other advantage of the Spitfire was that it was easy to handle in the curves. It was always turning faster than the P-51B, even when using the flaps. The Mustang couldn't spin as fast as the Spitfire Mk. IX at normal speed. But the spin performances were identical at 350 km/h. Finaly, the Mustang's four Browning machine guns were greatly inferior to the Spitfire Mk. IX's two 20 mm cannons and four Browning 303."

It was the P-51B compared to the Spitfire Mk. IX. So we can see that those two craft were almost equivalent and that the preference of one rather to the other was a question of personnal taste. But think about the Mk. XIV. With all the improvements, the Mk. XIV was better than the Mustang, no matter if it was a P-51B or a P-51D.

But once again, I must say that I like the Mk. IX. 8)

 

[Lightning Guy]

The Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. IX but what I've seen suggests the Mk. IX handeled better and that alot of pilots considered it to be the best all-around model of the Spit.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I decided to check on the claim that the 2 20mm and 4 .303s were better than the 4 .50cals of the P-51B. Per second, the Spit delivered 4.928lbs of lead and 1250kW of kinetic energy. In comparison, the P-51B was churning out 5.346lbs of lead and 910kW of kinetic energy. The Spit delivers more energy, but the 'Stang throws more weight. With the 6 guns of the P-51D, it was no contest.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The Spit delivers more energy, but the 'Stang throws more weight. With the 6 guns of the P-51D, it was no contest.

but when you look at the guns of the earier marks, they had 8x.303s...............

 

[Lightning Guy]

The 8 .303s used by early Spits and Hurricanes put out 3.784lbs ber sec and 480kW of muzzle energy. No contest. The four-gunned P-51B delivered considerably higher firepower.

 

[Maestro]

I decided to check on the claim that the 2 20mm and 4 .303s were better than the 4 .50cals of the P-51B. Per second, the Spit delivered 4.928lbs of lead and 1250kW of kinetic energy. In comparison, the P-51B was churning out 5.346lbs of lead and 910kW of kinetic energy. The Spit delivers more energy, but the 'Stang throws more weight. With the 6 guns of the P-51D, it was no contest.

You forgot to count in the four 303s of the Spitfire Mk. IX. That added to the two 20 mm cannons, you beat the P-51B. Because, as far as I know, the P-51B only had four guns.