Best (single engined) fighters of WWII

[Vincenzo]

your method no lw choice, you told that a aircraft it's combat ready when it's delivered, and this for my opinion it's a absurd.
AFAIK the P-51B coming in production in april/may '43, and coming combat ready in november/december '43, with 354th FG

i never told the today system are same of WWII, with my example i try to explain that delivery and combat ready they are not same

 

[drgondog]

your method no lw choice, you told that a aircraft it's combat ready when it's delivered, and this for my opinion it's a absurd.
AFAIK the P-51B coming in production in april/may '43, and coming combat ready in november/december '43, with 354th FG

i never told the today system are same of WWII, with my example i try to explain that delivery and combat ready they are not same

I think I agreed that delivery and combat ready are not the same. Still waiting for You to define the metric/milestones/achievements that define combat ready for WWII aircraft?

Take your argument and your opinion of absurdity to the US combat leaders and argue your case, or Italian or German or Russian or French or whatever.

I could care less what the definition is as long as you put some rational thought and logic to your definition?

 

[Vincenzo]

a plane it's combat ready when it's so called from the own air force(obvsiously each air force used different name).
for true my first think was use the first combat mission after i preferee the "combat ready" status for so we can comparate plane from not in war states (principally for US and japanese planes before december '41)

 

[drgondog]

a plane it's combat ready when it's so called from the own air force(obvsiously each air force used different name).
for true my first think was use the first combat mission after i preferee the "combat ready" status for so we can comparate plane from not in war states (principally for US and japanese planes before december '41)

In the US it was deemed combat ready when it was a.) accepted by the US Military Contracting agent (USAAF, USN) and deployed to operational units. In between it went to Eglin or Wright Pat or Pax River for flight test and operational evaluation. When the aircraft were then Deployed to an operational unit it was "combat Ready".

By that definition, however flawed it may be for US, the B-29A was deemed combat ready long before the 3350 engine problems were solved, ditto the P-80.

There were no serious problems encountered with the P-51H as it was accepted into USAAF operational groups first in US before VE Day -despite no flight tests or Operational evaluations at Wright Pat or Eglin prior to operational deployment and the fact that it was a 99% New airframe due to all the internal weight saving modifications..

Ditto the first production P-38 which was deployed to 1st Fighter Group in 1940 despite the P-38D not having self sealing tanks.

 

[Vincenzo]

my use of "combat ready" it's different from USAAF, a delivery of a plane (not talking of a new version of same plane already in use) a combat unit not come the plane combat ready the pilots need fly on it before so need time for take the combat readiness (at example AFAIK 354th FG need ~4 weeks), in war time a combat ready plane fly combat missions.
Saw that actual use in US of "combat ready" terminology was different from my intentions, and for exclude terminology confusion, i change it with "ready for war" and this come when the planes flying war missions (or in peacetime flying operational mission like air defence patrols or intercept alert)

 

[drgondog]

my use of "combat ready" it's different from USAAF, a delivery of a plane (not talking of a new version of same plane already in use) a combat unit not come the plane combat ready the pilots need fly on it before so need time for take the combat readiness (at example AFAIK 354th FG need ~4 weeks), in war time a combat ready plane fly combat missions.
Saw that actual use in US of "combat ready" terminology was different from my intentions, and for exclude terminology confusion, i change it with "ready for war" and this come when the planes flying war missions (or in peacetime flying operational mission like air defence patrols or intercept alert)

V - it is your thread so you may define Combat ready any way you choose.

My father had less than 4 hours in a P-51 before his first day of combat. He shot his first airplane down on his first mission (D-Day) three days later. He shot down two Me 109s plus a probable two weeks later. By your definition he could not possibly be 'combat ready' in a P-51 Mustang?

If one month of training (i.e 354FG) in a brand new airplane (A-36 P-51B) with no prior combat experience relative to the airframe the guns, the radios, the coolant system, new placement of carbs, etc , was inadequate - why did the 354th fly their first P-51B combat mission after less than 30 ndays of P-51B training? Were they operationally ready? Was the P-51B operationally ready?

Using that standard (either way) what does 3 to 4 months of training and experience in a YP-80 moving to P-80 mean?

Remember also, the 354th like the 357th FG both trained in P-39s and had basically zero Mustang time (of any type) before receiving a new and greatly modified P-51B (from A-36/P-51A) for operations - yet attained operational status within a month of starting the familiarization. Each of the processes were handicapped by not having a fully equipped complement of P-51B's when training started.

The 4th FG had Mustangs (a few-less than 10) starting on February 24, 1944 but not enough for full complement of pilots. On last day of february, through March 4, the 4th received loaned Mustangs from 355th FG who had just received their first on February 28th. The 4th had 50% of their pilots on the Berlin Mission of March 4 and March 6 learn to fly the Mustang on the way to the target.

The 355th flew one squadron on March 6 in the new Mustang, received their loaned ships back from 4th after the March 6, 1944 mission and flew their first "all Mustang Mission" on March 8 with two squadrons learning on the way to the target.

What constitutes Operational Readiness from your perspective? Was the 4th FG and 355th Not Operationally ready despite inflicting severe losses on the LW in their first couple of missions? Were they Ready for War?

The 8th AF in its infinite wisdom declared all four to be operationally ready despite training that ranged from 8 days to 30 days in a completely new and previously untested (operationally) airframe.

So, was the Mustang Operationally ready in December 1943. Did the Mustang have more previous experience and learning opportunity than the first Operational P-80 wings say in April, 1945? Why or why not would the P-80 be considered Ready for War by April, 1945 if the 8th AF decided they needed them. What would be different from experiences with first P-51B's

 

[Vincenzo]

So, was the Mustang Operationally ready in December 1943. Did the Mustang have more previous experience and learning opportunity than the first Operational P-80 wings say in April, 1945? Why or why not would the P-80 be considered Ready for War by April, 1945 if the 8th AF decided they needed them. What would be different from experiences with first P-51B's

easy reply that there are more cheange from P-80 and a prop fighter that from a A-36 and the P-51 B. there is not reason that a more complicated plane like P-80A coming ready for war missions after 2 months from start of production and a P-51 B after 7 months. logicus that need more time and not less.

for your father for my method him was ready for war, him was flying a war missions.

 

[MikeGazdik]

Actually, I will take on anyone with this! And I am not sharing the Vodka.

 

[drgondog]

easy reply that there are more cheange from P-80 and a prop fighter that from a A-36 and the P-51 B. there is not reason that a more complicated plane like P-80A coming ready for war missions after 2 months from start of production and a P-51 B after 7 months. logicus that need more time and not less.

German fighter pilots transitioned into the Me 262 quickly and easily. Same for P-80.

Big differences included longer take off runs, slower acceleration and throttle management, and dealing with a cleaner, less responsive system in the landing pattern - basically low altitude performance 're-education'.

Complications more with Service and maintenance to jet engines for ground crews.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I just can't consider a plane a fighter "of WWII" unless it kills the enemy in WWII.

 

[C0WB0Y]

Yak-9...

...not that I'm biased or anything.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I wonder what ti would cost to buy that tooling from Yak since they don't want to build any more new ones.

 

[C0WB0Y]

I wonder what ti would cost to buy that tooling from Yak since they don't want to build any more new ones.

Quite a few million, I'm sure.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Quite a few million, I'm sure.

It seems silly they'd charge that much since they don't want to use it anymore. Still, I think 3 million would be fair.

 

[C0WB0Y]

It seems silly they'd charge that much since they don't want to use it anymore. Still, I think 3 million would be fair.

Wanna split the costs???

 

[Clay_Allison]

Wanna split the costs???

I could sell my soul and not come up with 1%

 

[Vincenzo]

German fighter pilots transitioned into the Me 262 quickly and easily. Same for P-80.

Big differences included longer take off runs, slower acceleration and throttle management, and dealing with a cleaner, less responsive system in the landing pattern - basically low altitude performance 're-education'.

Complications more with Service and maintenance to jet engines for ground crews.

preseries Me 262 flying from summer '43, operational status if i remember good september/october '44 , don't seem very quickly and easily (the transition to jets like you tell don't need only pilots)

 

[drgondog]

If you had to bet your life on one of the two, it would have to be the Me-109! In early versions it hade much better fire power than the Spit with two 20s on the wings and two RCMGs in the nose, but later planes had all CL Guns and were very much more effective than any Spit. And it had Leading edge slats to give it a longer across the circle range. More speed and smaller visual acquisition range all make it the only real choice of the two!

Firepower is unimpressive if your adversary is behind you and remains there.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Shooter - please stop clogging this forum with your stupidity. Do you even realize you're responding to a 7 year old thread? You should throw yourself a ticker tape parade, celebrating the fact that Bill gave you the time of day!

 

[pbehn]

Shooter - please stop clogging this forum with your stupidity. Do you even realize you're responding to a 7 year old thread? You should throw yourself a ticker tape parade, celebrating the fact that Bill gave you the time of day!

I missed shooter, it must be a week since we had a "shooting across the chord" discussion