Best (single engined) fighters of WWII

[Vincenzo]

mike so you think that F6F it's best of F4U? and both so superior to mustang?

 

[drgondog]

How about this: 1939> Bf 109, 1940 > Spit, 1941> Fw 190, 1942> Spit MkIX, 1943> F4U, 1944> P-38J, 1945> P-51.

Curious why you picked F4U in 1943.

I love the airplane but it basically was only deployed in squadron level strength in a very small AOA (Solomons) for the USMC. The P-38 contributed (and maybe P-40) as much in 1943 and were fighting in all theatres.

For 1944 the P-38J had an excellent record in PTO, fair to good in MTO and dismal to poor in ETO. The Mustang broke the back of the Luftwaffe in MTO and ETO and fair to good in PTO in second half. It was never outclassed in any theatre... until the Me 262, and performance wise, the Ta 152.

Last but not least - only the late model J's with manuevering flap kits prior to L made it competitive against the Fw 190 and me 109 - and that was mid 1944 after it was being retired in 8th AF.

..and the 38, as noted, was still a twin engine fighter.

 

[MikeGazdik]

No I don't think the F6F is better than the F4U, but I already gave the F4U the 1943 slot. Though small in numbers, the F4U when it came on line in 1943 was in my opinion the best fighter going. The Merlin Mustang wasn't ready yet.

My reason for picking the F6F, F4U, and P-38 was simply to not forget the Pacific theatre. Most discussions ( on this forum and away ) generally first look at the European theatre only. Those 3 aircraft changed the course of battle in the Pacific, without thier offensive capabilities, the war would have taken much much longer.

The P-38 also was great in the MTO. Obviously in the ETO it wasn't. However as alluded to by "drgondog", the later J model and L with the dive flaps were the real killer Lightnings. If the Merlin Mustang would not have come on line, the P-38 would have been THE long range escort. There was no other choice. ( I know someone will say P-47N, but I think that was a 1945 introduction? ) By the time the J and L models were out they were much better aircraft and would have been able to complete the escort mission in the ETO. The best models of the P-38 were replaced by Mustangs because the 8th AF was by then committed to the P-51. I have read several books on the P-38, and once the late J model was in service, they became quite effective but weren't around long before all except the 56th went to Mustangs.

 

[Vincenzo]

i try to explain that this it's not year by year but nobody understand me, mike if you want can put F4U asthe best from march 43 to may 44 or also to september '45, obv. can' t put the P-38 only for it's a twin engined

 

[Waynos]

Sorry Vincenzo, I get it now.

If I can stretch a point I can call up the P-80's deployed to Italy in April 1945, If not I would just drop it from the list and keep the rest of it the same with the Mustang IV running up to the end of the war

 

[Vincenzo]

they were two YP80A in testing

 

[Clay_Allison]

they were two YP80A in testing

And one of them killed Richard Bong. giving any spot to a dangerous prototype is just silly.

 

[drgondog]

And one of them killed Richard Bong. giving any spot to a dangerous prototype is just silly.

Clay - he was flying a production P-80 on Hiroshima day when the fuel pump failed.. there were many more P-80s at that time than all the Ta 152/He 162's produced. IIRC, even 12 or 13 YP80s were built and flown before end of 1944.

The 'dangerous' label while somewhat true for early production P-80s (YP80) were no more dangerous than the early production models of the Me 262.

It's hard to get the actual production numbers for the Ta 152 but it is possible that more P-80's and YP80s were produced by VE day.

 

[Vincenzo]

It's hard to get the actual production numbers for the Ta 152 but it is possible that more P-80's and YP80s were produced by VE day.

This is easy true not bombing and factory occupation in US in '45

 

[drgondog]

This is easy true not bombing and factory occupation in US in '45

Vincenzo - i was not denigrating Ta 152 but merely pointing out that not only was the P-80 in full production before VE Day but there were perhaps 50 or more produced by the time Ta 152 production was halted - simply to contrast that it wasn't a dangerous prototype, per se. The P-80 (not YP-80) started rolling out in Feb 1945 as a continuation of the YP-80 series..

If one wishes to debate what constitutes 'prototype' if different from the "X" prefix, have at it..

 

[Clay_Allison]

Clay - he was flying a production P-80 on Hiroshima day when the fuel pump failed.. there were many more P-80s at that time than all the Ta 152/He 162's produced. IIRC, even 12 or 13 YP80s were built and flown before end of 1944.

The 'dangerous' label while somewhat true for early production P-80s (YP80) were no more dangerous than the early production models of the Me 262.

It's hard to get the actual production numbers for the Ta 152 but it is possible that more P-80's and YP80s were produced by VE day.

How many enemy aircraft were shot down by that death trap in 1945?

 

[drgondog]

How many enemy aircraft were shot down by that death trap in 1945?

Zero Clay. What is title of the Thread? Made it or didn't make it to combat?

How many of the list, in your opinion, were better than the P-80 (not the YP-80 or XP-80)? And why do you think so? Production or advanced prototype with multiple versions flying, even..

 

[Clay_Allison]

Zero Clay. What is title of the Thread? Made it or didn't make it to combat?

How many of the list, in your opinion, were better than the P-80 (not the YP-80 or XP-80)? And why do you think so? Production or advanced prototype with multiple versions flying, even..

All of the ones that were actually operational and weren't more dangerous to the pilots than the enemy. You want a Jet? The Meteor was a far more polished airplane. The Me 262 was proven in combat. What did the XP-80 do in 1945 that showed it was ready to fight?

1947? Maybe.

 

[MikeGazdik]

i try to explain that this it's not year by year but nobody understand me, mike if you want can put F4U asthe best from march 43 to may 44 or also to september '45, obv. can' t put the P-38 only for it's a twin engined

Yeah, I was reminded it was single engine only, I had forgot and originally picked the P-38, which I replaced with the F6F. I will stick with my "revised" list. As an argument, the P-38 did perform the roles of single engine fighters. Some would argue it having two engines was of no advantage, some would argue it was an advantage. But this is your thread, so I will play by the rules

 

[Vincenzo]

Vincenzo - i was not denigrating Ta 152 but merely pointing out that not only was the P-80 in full production before VE Day but there were perhaps 50 or more produced by the time Ta 152 production was halted - simply to contrast that it wasn't a dangerous prototype, per se. The P-80 (not YP-80) started rolling out in Feb 1945 as a continuation of the YP-80 series..

If one wishes to debate what constitutes 'prototype' if different from the "X" prefix, have at it..

True and i never told that P-80 was not in full production, but AFAIK they were not combat ready in WWII

 

[drgondog]

True and i never told that P-80 was not in full production, but AFAIK they were not combat ready in WWII

Hard to say - like the P-51H which started production series at same time, neither actually saw combat during WWII. Whether the P-80 was combat ready for the remaining 5 months of WWII, as the first were being deployed in February March 1945 to USAAF operational units in the US, must remain a question.

If you compare the same 'status/operational readiness' in contrast to the Me 262 going to JV 44, then yes it was 'combat ready' in March 1945... certainly to same standards as He 162 and Ta 152 in March - May.

The PTO was not suitable due to the range limitations and simply, it was not required to counter any threat from the Japanese.

 

[Vincenzo]

delivery was not combat ready, US common take more time from delivery to combat ready that, i think, all others in WWII, this is a choice, i think, give you more reliability on planes delivered a combat unit but newest model come late to combat unit

 

[drgondog]

delivery was not combat ready, US common take more time from delivery to combat ready that, i think, all others in WWII, this is a choice, i think, give you more reliability on planes delivered a combat unit but newest model come late to combat unit

Then state what your specific definition may be for 'almost combat ready' and what metric must be achieved to be 'combat ready'?

and maybe contrast that definition with the F4U and P51B and all versions of P-38 prior to late J models at high altitude over Europe? Ditto the Me 262, Ta 152 and He 162?

I would pose Combat Ready is whatever definition the controlling authority (USAAF for example) say it is by deploying the aircraft to operational units.

This definition usually occurred as the first aircraft was accepted by the USAAF from the contractor's production contract. It could be taken OFF Combat Ready status when issue arise as in the first YP-80's reaching UK and Italy.

 

[Vincenzo]

In my country "combat ready" it's for plane/pilot was ready to fly combat mission, after all the test/train, now need some years from delivery (like for EFA).

with your metode the fw 190 was combat ready in late '40, with Fw 190 A-0

 

[drgondog]

In my country "combat ready" it's for plane/pilot was ready to fly combat mission, after all the test/train, now need some years from delivery (like for EFA).

with your metode the fw 190 was combat ready in late '40, with Fw 190 A-0

Not my method Vincenzo. That would be LW choice.

Ditto P-51B. They stuck a new engine into a modified airframe, sent a couple to Wright Pat and Eglin in mid 1943 as the Production contracts were let and started shipping them to UK before flight tests were complete. The 354th tested in A-36's while awaiting the arrival and started flying them in combat within two weeks of Group level assembly and test at the Service depots.

That is a huge difference and represents war conditions for WWII complexity fighters versus modern day systems.