best fighter of ww II

[Lightning Guy]

I would think so. The Griffon was just a little too big and spoiled the lines. Of course, whatever was lost in asthetics was more than made up for in performance. Maybe it's just be, but I think planes often get uglier in their development.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i don't think that's the case with the 109....................

 

[Lightning Guy]

Well, there are exceptions, but the extra electronics, bigger engines, added armament, wing area, balances, etc. that are added to most planes over the years just ruin the original lines.

 

[Gemhorse]

Yeah, I had misread the information; - apparently a pilot had succeeded in recovering from a dive achieving 600 mph, in a P-38J...but there were later developments of the Lightning....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the "fusilage" of that XP-58 looks like the P-61.........................

 

[Lightning Guy]

It is similar. The both the XP-49 and XP-58 had serious trouble with their engines. Of the course of it's development, various versions of the XP-58 were designed around 5 different engines types leading Kelly Johnson to describe it as Lockheed's first 10-engined fighter. The USAAF also never decided on an appropriate goal for the XP-58 (bomber destroyer and attack bomber were both considered). In both instances, time and effort were drawn away from the proven P-38 and basically wasted. Still, that's a very nice plan view of the three of them.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

though the P-38J looks the better of the 3...................

 

[Lightning Guy]

I think so. The XP-58 was simply beastly and the cockpit of the XP-49 just didn't look right (thought you can't tell from the plan view).

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

actually the more you look at it, the more the whole XP-58 looks like the P-61......................

 

[Lightning Guy]

It did, but there were several noteable differences. The XP-58 (in the final form) was going to be powered by liquid-cooled engines instead of the P-61's radials.

 

[Helios]

Hi to all, my first post...

Just to mention this, it is hard to just rate a plane without rating the pilot. For example, the lightning, an excellent plane of course, but what if some newbies meet a well-trained dogfighter?
15.11.1943 13:10 P-38
15.11.1943 13:10 P-38
15.11.1943 13:11 P-38
15.11.1943 13:12 P-38
Four P-38 going down in just three minutes hit by one! pilot in its Me-109. Now, if you just recognize this short list, what is the better plane then? Of course, it is nonsense, but it shows how hard it is to compare 'facts'. What fighter has a better role rate, a better climb rate, is faster, has a higher range, and then is shot down by an outdated fighter just because of a worser pilot. So, imho, it is okay to bring these facts, they are interesting, but indicating nothing...

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

Actually...


The Me-109 has quite the advantage...

Smaller, more agile, and depending on the variant, the great match-maker, the Mk-108.

 

[Sagaris]

The shape of the planes in that plan view posted up there look very odd to me, was it common for planes of WWII to have that type of construction?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

actually range and top speed don't depends on pilot skill.................

 

[Lightning Guy]

That basic outline was not very common. That was one reason that the P-38 was chosen to fly the low-level cover over the Normandy beacheads - it would be easily recognized by Allied gunners.

 

[Helios]

actually range and top speed don't depends on pilot skill.................

...and don't guarantee a victory. Thats my only message, even the best fighters can be and were shot down, so it is right: There is allways somebody who is better than you...

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

Well, it always did depend on the pilots.

I was just stating the Me-109's advantages.

Look at Finand's Winter War and you'll see that equipment advantages make up less than half the battle.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Actually, the statement that there is always someone better than you is a logical fallacy as it would require an infinite number of individuals.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well said..................

 

[Helios]

Actually, the statement that there is always someone better than you is a logical fallacy as it would require an infinite number of individuals.

In fact your statement is wrong, as it implements that a person is able to do the same thing everytime with the same accurancy, strength a.s.o. But that is nearly not possible due to the great variety of influencing factors (with a look at the chaos theory). So, this infinite regress is no logical problem, as there is no time mentioned within the sentence.
For our 'problem', the answer is much more easier, since it is no secret that even the best pilots were sometimes shot down by beginners. This would not be possible, if your statement was true. Reality has proven that there is always someone better than you, and i am sorry for stealing your illusion that you are the best of all