Best World War II Aircraft?

[Elvis]

Yeah, that's kinda what I figured.

Thanks.




Elvis

 

[P-Popsie]

So here i go again with the feline among the birds but and i might add i have only read the tail of the thread so be gentle with me untill i catch up but wouldn't one of the major parameters of best constitute versatility and under these considerations woudn't the DH 98 in its various configurations have to stand tall as an obvious choice. It could do any job virtually from that of the Spitfire' to that of the Flying Fort. and before i hear the cry of impossible consider that the Cookie 4000lbs Bombs that were carried by these A/C all the way to Berlin are the same weight as the bomb load of a B-17G. it was employed as a Ship hunter, a Train Hunter, a Gestapo Hunter, Pathfinder Night fighter, Ground Attack, High altitude precision bomber ,Night Bomber escort and the list goes on anyone got any other A/C that was expected to perform so many varied roles?

 

[D.H firemoth]

What about the tampest its a very fast prop. aircraft for one engine and has good role and turn rate so theirs my vote

 

[D.H firemoth]

or the p-38

 

[renrich]

Not postulating that the Zeke was the best WW2 AC but am rereading Lundstrom's second book about USN fighters in the early going in the Pacific. When the Guadalcanal invasion was begun(summer 1942) the IJN had no carriers in the vicinity so sent landbased bombers to attack the Allied invasion fleet. The escorting A6M model 21s, operating from landbases had to fly 560 miles, mostly over water, fight and return that same 560 miles. Lundstrom mentions by comparison the distance from eastern England to Berlin is 460 miles. Whew! It is fortunate that the LW did not have the Zeke during the BOB.

 

[Amsel]

I really think that Focke-Wulfe put out a superior fighter. Especially the Dora. Though it would be interesting to see how the Bearcat would have done.

 

[GrauGeist]

renrich, the Zeke was a good fighter in many respects, truly...but it's one shortcoming was virtually no protection for the pilot. The Japanese counted on it's superiority for protection, thus never providing armor or fuel tank protection, making it one of the most flammable aircraft of the war.

In the ETO, it probaly would not have survived very long as a front-line machine.

IMHO, I think that the Ki-61 Hein was far superior to the Zero in many respects, having better speed, armor protection, firepower, RoC and a range of 1,120 miles...and looked remarkably close to the He100 and M.C202 in design.

 

[renrich]

GG, I am aware of the early Zeke's shortcomings. It not only lacked armor and self sealing tanks but it's armament was deficient compared to the Wildcat and it had high speed handling problems. However, and this is a stretch because the A6M was only barely operational in the summer of 1940, but it could have competed nicely with the Spits and Hurricanes during the BOB. Neither British AC had all self sealing tanks, I believe, and neither had an edge in overall performance and a fighter that could escort the bombers and have an hour or more to stay and fight instead of ten or fifteen minutes would have made it very difficult for the British. Later model A6Ms had armor, ss tanks and improved armament but the airframe and engine could not keep up with the additional weight, unlike the Spit. A combat radius of 560 miles was unheard of, for a single engined fighter, in early 1942 and would translate to far more than a range of 1140 miles. For instance the F4F4 Wildcat had a yardstick range of 800 miles, but from a carrier had a combat radius of around 175 miles. The Zeke 32, with better performance than the 21 had 20% less range.

 

[GrauGeist]

renrich, good points, all of them...interesting idea, Zero versus Spit...

Aparently, there were confrontations between the Spitfire and the Zero, but not until after 1943. The Spitfire was faster, but at a disadvantage in a turning fight.

In the Far East, late in '43, 136 Squadron encountered a flight of Japanese bombers escorted by Zeros, shooting down 12 enemy for the loss of a single Mk VC.

The report didn't specifiy the number of enemy fighters downed or the Zero's type, though.

 

[renrich]

GG, I think you will find, somewhere on this forum a long discussion about encounters between Spits and Hurris, probably in 1942 and Zeke 21s, to the embarrasment of the British AC, both over Australia and in the CBI. In the Guadalcanal campaign, the USN was still facing IJN veteran pilots. Later, the quality of the Japanese pilots was inconsistent and apparently the quality of the Japanese army pilots was never up to IJN standards. Even in the last stages of the war, the Zeke was a formidable adversary when well flown. During the time the F4F in it's various models was the principal USN fighter in the Pacific it pretty much fought the Zeke to a draw because of better armor, superior ruggedness and better tactical doctrine. It is not generally known but the F4F3, once it was modified for wartime, was a better match for the Zero than the F4F4. In fact it was not until the FM2 came out that the performance of the F4F3 was matched.

 

[kool kitty89]

By the BoB pretty much all the operational Spitfires and Hurricanes had been modified with armor and self-slealing tanks. (stock on those than in production) This was also the case for most of the German a/c. At this time the nose tank was non self-sealing on the Hurricane (later modified as well) and the Spitfire's top nose tank never got self sealing. (it did get increased armor, iirc at the BoB there was already a fireproof bulkhead between the cocpit and the fuel tank)

Bf 109E's would have had enough range with drop tanks, and while these had been sucessfully tested earlier it wasn't until the tail end of the BoB that the drop tank eqipped E-7's were available.


It should also be noted that the Spitfire, Hurricane, and Bf 109 all had similar aileron control issues to the Zero, with the Spitfire later fitted with metal ailerons to improve this.
I believe this was due to the use of wire-pully type controls and partially to the type of ailerons used, I think most of the US aircraft had push-pull rod operated controls, this is what gave the Fw 190 shuch good aileron control)


Another note is that the Zero's structure was excedingly light and not very resistant to battle damage, however the biggest killer (as for pretty much any WWII aircraft) was fire and the unprotected tanks were a major vulnerability. (even if they didn't catch fire, a leaking tank could mean not making it home, especialy with the ranges the Zero operated)

Several other have said this before, but fuel tank protection (particularly sealing and fire supression) should have been the foremest improvement necessary for the Zero, moreso that pilot protection as they represented a much larger vulnerable area. (plus the engine provided a large amount of frontal protection for the pilot)
Historically the later zeros got armor long before they got self sealing, the later fuel tanks were devided into multiplke smaller cells with fire supression added to limit vulnerability, but only the very late models had self sealing.

The IJA's Ki-43 II did get modest pilot armor and rudementary self sealing tanks, but these were not all that effective and the Ki 43's structure was even lighter than the Zero's.

 

[renrich]

Another observation I would like to make about WW2 AC I recently picked up after rereading Lundstrom's second book about USN fighter operations. His books are extremely well researched and detailed. On first reading it is possible to get confused as to what is going on because of the different VFs, VTs, VBs, VSs, carrier attack planes, carrier bombers, etc. Just finished rereading about the Battle of the Eastern Solomons and it dawned on me that many of the IJN AC in the battle, especially the recon and observation planes shot down were not victims of the VFs ( F4F fighters) but rather were splashed by VSs and VBs ( SBDs.) Apparently, many of the SBD drivers were frustrated fighter pilots and quite adept at aerial gunnery and were very aggressive to boot. The SBD mounted two 50 cal MGs in the nose and during the battle they accounted for at least a half dozen IJN recon planes, mostly the big four engined flying boats, several Val dive bombers and perhaps damaged a Zeke or two. Earlier, at the Coral Sea, SBDs were detailed as part of the CAP at low altitudes trying to intercept IJN VTs. It seems that a well flown SBD could be a pretty fair air to air weapon. The TBF at Eastern Solomons was also used as a fighter by a few especially aggressive pilots with a single 30 cal in the nose. Says more for their guts than brains. However, one can see that if your home and place to land at sea is about to be sunk, one could use extreme measures.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It should also be noted that the Spitfire, Hurricane, and Bf 109 all had similar aileron control issues to the Zero, with the Spitfire later fitted with metal ailerons to improve this.
I believe this was due to the use of wire-pully type controls and partially to the type of ailerons used, I think most of the US aircraft had push-pull rod operated controls, this is what gave the Fw 190 shuch good aileron control)

Wire pulley? It's actually a "cable."

Control cable actuated flight control surfaces are the cheaper way to go during the design process and in some cases are easier to install and operate. Push/ pull rods provide a more positive control authority but can easily force an over stress condition through out the airframe due to the rigidly of the system. It's also easier to inspect and maintain out in the field. Depending on the aircraft, rigging could be a problem as documented by some Fw 190 maintainers, but I have a hard time with that. Control cables also stretch if they are over stressed and a properly placed "BB" can ruin your day with control cables.

My 2cents...

 

[pbfoot]

interesting tidbit is that the Brit aircraft had 2 cables in case one was damaged whereas the Germans used a single cable

 

[FLYBOYJ]

interesting tidbit is that the Brit aircraft had 2 cables in case one was damaged whereas the Germans used a single cable

I think it depended on what aircraft you were talking about.

 

[renrich]

Flyboy, have read your comments about the safety of tricycle landing gears and have a question. My limited experience is with a 172 but have talked recently with my brother who is getting some tail dragger time in prep for buying a Stearman and he remarks about the difficulty of landing same. Question is, the design of almost all single engine WW2 AC because of engine placement and size of engine would not allow for the nose gear to say nothing of added weight and complexity. Was there a solution to those issues?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Question is, the design of almost all single engine WW2 AC because of engine placement and size of engine would not allow for the nose gear to say nothing of added weight and complexity. Was there a solution to those issues?

IMO not really - also remember that there were still a lot of dirt and grass fields and in that environment the tail dragger was better ground handling. Unless designers took an approach like Bell did with the P-39, designing many WW2 aircraft in a tri cycle configuration would have been difficult.

 

[kool kitty89]

The Me 309 had a nose wheel under the engine. Messerschmitt Me 309 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (though there were setbacks due to ironing out problems with this configuration)

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Interesting fact about the SBD's pilots, I didn't know that. I guess they were washed out fighter pilots or something?

 

[renrich]

There was quite a bit on interchange between VT, VSB and VF pilots. My suspicion is that most of the Navy pilots wanted to be VFs. I believe that Swede Vejatsa (spelling) was an SBD driver and then switched to fighters. Boone Guyton was a dive bomber pilot before getting the job as chief test pilot on the Corsair. A number of the AVG pilots were former USN VSB pliots.