Best World War II Aircraft?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the mossie could dogfight it with the best of them too you know

as far as best aircraft, can the P-80 be considdered? no, i don't even think of it as a WWII aircraft really, it was only really declared operational as a token measure if you ask me........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed as well. It was not fully operational until after the war was over.

 

[Gnomey]

Agreed as well for a plane to be considered it would have to be fully operational (as well as flown some combat sorties - or transport if not a combat aircraft).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And that is why the P-80, P-59, Ta-183, P.1011 to name a few are not counted. They did not have an impact, they did not have a say in how things went. Hell 1 never flew at all and 1 flew after the war so for all intensive purposes they are post WW2 aircraft.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but would you class them as WWII era (as in not a WWII aircraft but around the time of the war)?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I consider them WW2 era aircraft. Absolutly. I even consider them WW2 aircraft actually now that I think about it. I just think they can be voted for the best aircraft of WW2.

 

[Ken812]

Come on the mustang!, where would the 1000s of American and British bomber crews have been without it?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Come on the mustang!, where would the 1000s of American and British bomber crews have been without it?

Waiting around for aircraft and parts being carried through all types of weather by C-47s....

 

[lesofprimus]

HA! Put that in ur pipe and smoke it...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Come on the mustang!, where would the 1000s of American and British bomber crews have been without it?

Where would the troops be without the C-47 bringing them the supplies to win the war? Where would the overated P-51D Mustang be without the C-47 bringing the spare parts for it because it is broke? Where would the crews that flew the P-51D and the B-17 and the B-24 be without the C-47 bringing supplies and food to the them?

I will say it again. There is more to winning a war than fighters and bombers.

 

[Bf109_g]

Hi all.

Anyone voting for the Bf-109G/K-4? I am.

Cheers.

James.

 

[syscom3]

.....Where would the overated P-51D Mustang be without the C-47 bringing the spare parts for it because it is broke? Where would the crews that flew the P-51D and the B-17 and the B-24 be without the C-47 bringing supplies and food to the them?
.....

I dont think there were very many sorties in the ETO of the C47's doing that.

The C47's fame in providing the logistics, was supporting the troops.

In the ETO, practically everything was brought over in ships and distributed by ground transport. Occasionally, a long range C54 flew from Halifax to the UK.

In the PTO and CBI, the C47 did perform quite a few logistics missions like that, simply because of the distances involved between bases, and sea transport sometimes was problematic.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think there were very many sorties in the ETO of the C47's doing that.

The C47's fame in providing the logistics, was supporting the troops.

In the ETO, practically everything was brought over in ships and distributed by ground transport. Occasionally, a long range C54 flew from Halifax to the UK.

In the PTO and CBI, the C47 did perform quite a few logistics missions like that, simply because of the distances involved between bases, and sea transport sometimes was problematic.

That was not the point of my post. The point was that there is more to winning a war than fighters and bombers.

 

[redcoat]

The reason I chose the P38, was its phenominal range.

It brought the fight to the Luftwaffe and changed the course of the daylight heavy bombing campaign.

I think you might be interested in this post from the Historic-Battles forum by the poster 'robert' ( a poster noted for his knowledge of aviation matters) on the P-38

"The P-38 had three major problems in the ETO:

1. Its Allison engines suffered severely reduced performance at high altitude, making it unsuitable for long-range escort work.

2. Its cockpit heating system was inadequate for the low temperatures encountered over Northern Europe in winter, often leaving pilots with frostbite.

3. With one engine out, the P-38 was a sitting duck for Luftwaffe fighters, meaning that the twin-engined configuration was a handicap, not a help.

"The extremely low temperatures encountered at altitudes above 20,000 ft was the primary cause of engine trouble. At -50 degrees, lubricating oil became sluggish and the full application of full power, particularly in a climb, could cause piston rod bearings to break up with dire consequences. Above 22,000 ft the Allison engines would also begin to throw oil...Turbo-supercharger regulators also gave trouble, eventually traced to moisture from the vapor trail, gathering behind the engine exhaust stubs, getting into the balance lines and freezing.

"[On Febrary 4, 1944] nearly half the P-38s had been forced to abort when once again extreme cold forced a spate of engine failures. Losses were often high in such circumstances for the Luftwaffe were quick to exploit the situation when a P-38 was observed to have a feathered propeller. Because the likelihood of these troubles increased with altitude, Lightnings did not of choice operate above 30,000 ft. In consequence Me 109 top cover, which was usually around the 35,000 ft mark, had been repeatedly bouncing the P-38s on nearly every mission."

- from The Mighty Eighth by Roger Freeman

Even as a reconnaissance aircraft in Europe it was replaced as soon as possible; the F-5 (recce version of the P-38) was restricted to a 300-mile radius after mid-July 1943, and couldn't operate at over 30,000 ft. Col. Homer Sanders, the CO of the 7th PG, who provided reconnaissance for the 8th AF, specifically asked Ira Eaker, the CO of the 8th AF, for Spitfire Mk. XIs, and they began to receive them in November, 1943. As writer Paul Ludwig notes, "From the very beginning, use of the Spitfire PR Mk.XIs dramatically changed the number and character of missions flown by the 7th PG."

In the Pacific, the P-38 was indeed the top-scoring USAAF fighter. But it didn't shoot down more Japanese planes than any other fighter, as many people claim; somewhere, the word USAAF seems to have been deleted from the sentence. In reality, the F6F Hellcat destroyed almost three times as many Japanese aircraft, and the F4U Corsair also outscored the P-38. The totals are 5,156 for the F6F; 2,140 for the F4U; and 1,700 for the P-38. It simply didn't do the job in either the Pacific or the ETO as well as other US fighters. In the ETO it ranked behind the P-51 and P-47; in the Pacific the F6F and F4U.

The P-38 was quite a bit slower than other contemporary US, British, or German fighters. The fastest fighter version of the Lightning was the P-38L, which could do 414 mph. This was at least 20-30 mph slower than the P-51B/D, P-47D, Spitfire Mk. XIV, Tempest Mk. V, Bf 109K, or Fw 190D. Even with the wing flap introduced on the P-38J-25, it couldn't turn with other fighters throughout a full turn. The flap helped in the initial turn, but then the laws of physics took over. The wing loading (weight vs. wing area) of the P-38L was 63.1 (lbs per square foot). The Spitfire Mk. XIV was 35.0. There's no way the P-38 could have stayed with a Spit or Zero through the turn. The combination of being both slower and less agile than almost any other front line fighter of the time is hardly a point in the P-38's favor. To its credit, its ceiling was excellent, at 44,000 ft., a mark bettered only by the Spitfire. It had half the normal range of the P-51 - remember, it had to carry fuel for two engines; normal range for the P-38J/L was 450 miles, against the 950 miles of the P-51D. It's not even close. Its twin-engined configuration was perhaps its worst feature. If one engine was put out, it was a sitting duck for enemy fighters; one quote I have seen recounted how a pilot had seen only one P-38 return from the combat area on one engine during the course of his combat tour. (See American Fighters of World War Two Volume One by Rene Francillon, page 48).

One thing often brought up by P-38 supporters is that the top two US aces, Bong and McGuire, used only P-38s. This is true, and I admit that its good points were perfect for fighting the Japanese fighters. However, it's also true that only three of the top 17 US aces flew P-38s, and besides, you can't judge an aircraft's effectiveness as a whole by one or two pilots who may have rung up large scores in them. Other US-built fighters have compiled similar figures. Both Bong and McGuire's totals were pretty much equalled by Finnish pilots flying Brewster Buffalos and Soviet pilots flying P-39 Airacobras. Hans Wind shot down 39 Soviet aircraft while flying the Buffalo, only one short of Bong's total. That doesn't automatically make those aircraft the best either.

So what do we have? An aircraft whose performance was inferior in all important respects (save ceiling) to contemporary US, British, and German designs; which had only an even kill ratio and the worst loss rate of any US fighter in the ETO; which was pulled out of escort duty in Europe as soon as possible; and which in the theater that it performed best in, the Pacific, was outscored almost three-to-one by another fighter. I do have a tremendous amount of respect for the versatility of the P-38; it could do a lot of different jobs fairly well, many of which it was not originally designed for."

 

[Glider]

Excellent posting Redcoat.

Back to the point. As mentioned much earlier in the thread. If you are looking for the best aircraft in WW2, then you are looking for one aircraft whose results and effectiveness, totally eclipsed every other aircraft in every other airforce in the same role.

In this, the only clear winner is the C47 Dakota.

If you had to go for a second place then I propose the Catalina.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree on teh C47 but can not agree on the Catalina. Yes she was a great aircraft but what did she really accomplish that sets her over other aircraft?

 

[Parmigiano]

I agree on C47 as 'overall aircraft'

Parm special prizes (a chunk of old Parmigiano with a glass of Brunello)

Special prize for combat aircraft
Il2-Il 10 series
they won the war for Russia, tout court. And they were such a pain in the axx for the Wermacht that half of the Luftwaffe fighters were busy in trying to stop them.
Technically, it was by far the best attack aircraft of WW II, also easy to produce in great numbers.
OK, they suffered terrible losses but EVERY attack aircraft would, if deployed in a situation of air inferiority (see the Stuka example)

Special prize for innovation
Me 262
Simply one generation ahead, even if it was an 'interim' design.

Special prize for 'just in time'
Hmm... for me a difficult contest between the Spit in 1940 and the P51 in 1944. But I would say the P51, only because I think that Germans would not have won BoB even without the Spit.

 

[Gnomey]

"The Battle of Britain could of been won only with the Spitfire but it could not of been won only with the Hurricane" - Alex Henshaw (Spitfire Test Pilot)

 

[Parmigiano]

"The Battle of Britain could of been won only with the Spitfire but it could not of been won only with the Hurricane" - Alex Henshaw (Spitfire Test Pilot)

Ok, but this is like asking the butcher if the beef is good..

No, seriously, my point about BoB is independent from aircrafts: I believe that the Germans had not enough power (in numbers and in type of aircrafts) to substantially 'damage beyond repair' the British industry and warpower.

 

[Glider]

I agree on teh C47 but can not agree on the Catalina. Yes she was a great aircraft but what did she really accomplish that sets her over other aircraft?

The role I was thinking of was the long range maritime recce / Anti Sub role. It was clearly the best on the allied side serving with UK/USA/Russia and built in Russia with or without US approval. I simply cannot think of any Axis aircraft that comes close.