Best World War II Aircraft?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thats an impressive gain. The biggest problem with maximum speeds during level flight - is at what altitude?
I have seen figures for Spitfire Mk 1 as 362 mph at 18,500ft and for a Mk21 as 455 at 25,600 ft. Which makes a straight comparison alittle difficult!
 
Adler, agreed. I forgot that the first version of the 109 in service was as slow as that so that is a very impressive gain indeed. It was said of the Spitfire that it grew in weight by the equivalent of 36 passengers and all their luggage. Do you have any information on the weight gain of the 109? Being a more compact airframe did it manage not to pile on so much?

My search for a reliable definitive history of the 109 has been fruitless, do you have any recommendations? I think I have enough Spitfire books.
 
vinnye said:
Thats an impressive gain. The biggest problem with maximum speeds during level flight - is at what altitude?
I have seen figures for Spitfire Mk 1 as 362 mph at 18,500ft and for a Mk21 as 455 at 25,600 ft. Which makes a straight comparison alittle difficult!
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct!

Waynos said:
Adler, agreed. I forgot that the first version of the 109 in service was as slow as that so that is a very impressive gain indeed. It was said of the Spitfire that it grew in weight by the equivalent of 36 passengers and all their luggage. Do you have any information on the weight gain of the 109? Being a more compact airframe did it manage not to pile on so much?
Click to expand...

I will see when I get home.

Waynos said:
My search for a reliable definitive history of the 109 has been fruitless, do you have any recommendations? .
Click to expand...

I can recommend some when I get home as well.
 
Last edited:
While one can never say what the "best aircraft" of the war was, I certainly respect the JU 88's ability to overcome obsolescence and fill other niches. Maybe there should be a thread concerning the "most versatile" aircraft of the war......
 
dunmunro1 said:
I'm sure that everyone will agree that the best aircraft of WW2 was the Spitfire Mk VIII: high speed, long ranged, fast climbing, deadly firepower.

The Spitfire VIII served around the world and was very popular with the USAAF squadrons that flew it:
http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/articles/2008/07/uncle-sams-spitfires.htm
Click to expand...

Does it still fly in an operational role today? (Other than in a museum). Has it hauled thousands if not millions of people and freight from all corners of the world??? Has it served in almost every major conflict up until the mid 1980s????

Too much testosterone...:rolleyes:
 
If picking the best aircraft for gaining the most effective service through the war, then there must be a number of contenders:

Spitfire, continually developed from 1940 to beyond '45,
BF109, continually developed from pre 1939 to '45
Il2 Sturmovik, work horse of Soviet ground attack, and most numerous military aircraft ever built
F4F Wildcat, I believe shot down more enemy aircraft than any other type (correct me if I'm wrong on that)
P47 Thunderbolt, continually developed from 1942 to '45, widely used allied attack aircraft and long range fighter
C47 Skytrain, ubiquitous allied transport and para-drop aircraft
B29 Super Fortress, first truly strategic bomber, war winner, and most technically advanced aircraft of the war

It would be difficult to pick a best out of the above.

There are others that are not far behind this list:

Hurricane
Mosquito
Halifax
Lancaster
P51 Mustang
P38 Lightnning
F6 Hellcat
F4U Corsair
SBD Dauntless
A6M 'Zero'
Me262 (as the first operational jet fighter in widespread use)
FW190
JU88
B24 Liberator
B17 Flying Fortress
 
Last edited:
Waynos said:
Adler, agreed. I forgot that the first version of the 109 in service was as slow as that so that is a very impressive gain indeed. It was said of the Spitfire that it grew in weight by the equivalent of 36 passengers and all their luggage. Do you have any information on the weight gain of the 109? Being a more compact airframe did it manage not to pile on so much?
Click to expand...

The first 109Bs were around 2200 kg. The last one, the 109K-4 weighted 3362 kg, the so the gain was about 1,1 tons, plus in the meantime horsepower was tripled.

My search for a reliable definitive history of the 109 has been fruitless, do you have any recommendations? I think I have enough Spitfire books.
Click to expand...

The best one is undeniably Prien/Rodeike's Bf 109F-K. Highly recommendable for the later variants.
Radinger-Otto's 109F-K book is a good companion to it, as it has some interesting information, but its not so good alone as a standalone book.
Jean-Claude Mermet's Bf 109 guide can be found on the internet in PDF. Also highly recommended.
One that I found also very informative was Mathmann-Zobel's Bf 109 book. These ones are mostly free of errors that of popular books.
In addition, just about any of the Janda-Poruba books (K-4, K-4 camo, G-10/U4) are very highly recommended. Excellent photos, latest research, very through and has things nobody else.

For the earlier versions, its a difficult question. I know Radinger-Otto has a book the A-E variants, but I can't comment on it, its probably nice and well researched. Lynn Ritger also published a book on, I have the one for the early versions, which is also one of the best ones. Actually, the old Squadron Signal 109 volumes (two of them) are also rather good, even if some information - esp. on late variants - is now obsolate.
 
yeah but without them those big juicy bombers and transports are fish in a barrel. pre escort mission losses reflect that. long range fighter escort hastened the end of the war but letting accruate daylight bombing deep into the industrial heart of german occupied countries. without that germany would have had more ability to produce tanks, planes, ball bearings, fuel, etc. without the ability to keep producing war products the potential to sustain came into jeopardy and attrition became a increasing factor. US factories were never in fear of sustaining war damage and thus cranked to full production. the soviets moved their plants closer to siberia well away from the range of german bombers. because of that the soviet war machine cranked out huge numbers of tanks, aircraft, etc...because of the huge area of "insulation" between its industrial sector and the front. with vast numbers of factories in southern germany, austria, the eastern countries. these facilities would have enjoyed the same "insulation" as the russian and US. in order to destroy them would have taken very long flights over enemy held areas and the survival rate of bomber aircraft would have been ghastly. there were many other factors which contributed to the demise of the 3rd reich. for the bombers and transports to effectively achieve the stratigic goals for which they were intended and designed...without long range ( 6 to 7 hour flight time ) escorts would not have happened. and i will say this as well....the allies could have fielded 4 times the escorts that they did...but without the bombers ability to destroy the industrial might of the axis the war would have lasted many more years....to possibly a stalemate. this is like saying which link of the chain is the best....?? its the link that repairs the break so that the whole chain can do its job...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

GTX
Historic World War II aircraft hidden in plain sight
Replies
0
Views
687
GTX
GTX
BarnOwlLover
What (or what would) make a good tactical recon aircraft in World War II
Replies
10
Views
1K
ColFord
ColFord
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
bauple58
War Weary
Replies
14
Views
862
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
T
Identify a aircraft from WV II
Replies
19
Views
904
Engineman
E
Back