Best World War II Aircraft?

[bobbysocks]

and the fighters that let them enjoy free air space...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

and the fighters that let them enjoy free air space...

Yep!

 

[zoomar]

My off-the-top-of-the-head list follows. To be included planes had to have been produced in large numbers and in squadron service by 1943 - thus German jets and B-29 not allowed.

Best all-round single-seat single engine fighter - P-51
Best all-round single seat twin engine fighter - P-38
Best multi place twin engined fighter - Me-410
Best fighter bomber - Fw-190F/G
Best naval carrier fighter - F4U Corsair
Best naval carrier dive bomber - SBD Dauntless
Best naval carrier torpedo bomber - B6N
Best all-round close support ground attack - Il-2 Sturmovik
Best all-round Light bomber - Mosquito
Best all-round Medium Bomber - B-25
Best all-round Heavy Bomber- Lancaster
Best all-round transport - C-47
Beat all-round Liaison/small tactical recon - Fi-156
Best long range recon - Mosquito
Best naval ship borne recon/spotter - OSU2 Kingfisher

If I had to pick a best overall - a plane that symbolized all that is great and wonderful about WW2 aviation, my choice would not even be on the above list. It would be the Supermarine Spitfire.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If I had to pick a best overall - a plane that symbolized all that is great and wonderful about WW2 aviation, my choice would not even be on the above list. It would be the Supermarine Spitfire.

No one can argue the Spitfire's contribution to the war effort and the impact it made on aviation, BUT there was nothing that ground breaking or innovative about the design that makes it any real different than any other fighter of the period. By 1945 all these wonderful piston engine fighters were basically obsolete and quickly overshadowed by the jet. By the late 40s you can see their caresses strewn across countrysides and airports. The C-47/ DC-3 set the benchmark for design, system integration, maintainability and operating cost that can be found on modern transport aircraft today. I substantiate this statement by the amount of DC-3s still operational, and I'm not talking about flying with a museum group.

 

[Waynos]

It must have had something though to be the only piston aircraft ever to record m=0.9 in a dive, faster than any wartime jet and also more than the much vaunted laminar flow winged Spiteful, which came as a great disappointment to Supermarine. It must have been a bit gutting too for Joe Smith who had so marvellously developed his old boss' design, that his own fighter was no better and in some areas worse.

Somehow the Spitifre is a plane that is greater than the sum of its parts. I think that description is also apt for the Dakota as wel, if in a different way.

 

[Glider]

In terms of the title of the thread the difference between the Spitfire and the C47 was that the C47 was head and shoulders above all other transports in the impact they had on the war. There were transports that could carry more and further but none came close to dominance of the C47. I cannot think of another plane that was produced by both the Allied (Russia and USA) and Axis (Japan).

The Spitfire while having a significant impact always had close competitors and at times was second best. For instance in the early years it didn't dominate the 109, it was as good as the 109. In 1942 it was second to the 190 unti the IX arrived and even then it was as good as the 190, not better.
It didn't have the universal dominance that the C47 had in its role. Also as FJ points out, the C47 is still going strong around the world in its original role, nothing comes close.

 

[Waynos]

While the claim of the Dak is faultless, I was responding mainly to the fact that zoomar specifically said that, for him, the Spitfire was "a plane that symbolized all that is great and wonderful about WW2 aviation". That applies for me too. I don't think the Dak belongs to WW2. It is timeless, which is further proof of its greatness of course, but more people will think 'Spitfire' than will think 'C-47' if asked for a symbol of that conflict.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It is timeless

Nuff said...

 

[zoomar]

While the claim of the Dak is faultless, I was responding mainly to the fact that zoomar specifically said that, for him, the Spitfire was "a plane that symbolized all that is great and wonderful about WW2 aviation". That applies for me too. I don't think the Dak belongs to WW2. It is timeless, which is further proof of its greatness of course, but more people will think 'Spitfire' than will think 'C-47' if asked for a symbol of that conflict.

I couldn't have said this better! Some of my earliest childood memories involve my dad often taking me and my sister to our local municipal airport to watch Central Airlines DC-3s taxi right up to the terminal. The sound of those big radials revving and idling and feeling of the propwash blowing my hair was simply transcendent. Once I got to go to Tulsa (or maybe Wichita, I don't exactly remember) on a Dc-3. The DC-3/C-47 is symbolic of whole era of aviation, and what's more a few are actually still in real service. The Spit, with its tight but comfortable cockpit, RAF camoflage, and growling Merlin IS the archtypical WW2 fighter. The absolute greatest, even if not quite the "best".

 

[Ishvayne]

The Tempest, I say. Very often underrated, always standing a bit behind the Spitfire, Typhoon, Thunderbolt and Mustang. But I think it was quite fast, well armed and successful in dogfighting, interception (remember the V1) and ground attack. I think one of the best... if not the best allround fighter of WW2.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here we go again...

Fighters - too much testosterone

 

[Kryten]

I'm going to pitch a vote in for the typhoon, wars are won on the ground and the Tiffie did more to hasten the allied advance than any other aircraft, which brought the war to a close!

so I'm going for the Typhoon!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'm going to pitch a vote in for the typhoon, wars are won on the ground and the Tiffie did more to hasten the allied advance than any other aircraft, which brought the war to a close!

so I'm going for the Typhoon!

How did the Typhoon contribute more to the allied advance than any other aircraft?

 

[zoomar]

How did the Typhoon contribute more to the allied advance than any other aircraft?

Like, for example the Il-2 Sturmovik. People need to remember that it was Russian armies advancing in the east that bled the Wehrmacht dry and captured Berlin. That "allied advance" was far more important to the final defeat of Nazi Germany than anything the Typhoon did in the close air support role.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Like, for example the Il-2 Sturmovik. People need to remember that it was Russian armies advancing in the east that bled the Wehrmacht dry and captured Berlin. That "allied advance" was far more important to the final defeat of Nazi Germany than anything the Typhoon did in the close air support role.

And although it contributed greatly to the war effort, did it bring any technological or design breakthroughs that became the benchmark in ALL aircraft for the next 70 years? Was it designed in such a way that those who were completing maintenance on the aircraft were able to do so with minimal equipment? And lastly, did it bring longevity to the point where the aircraft actually paid for itself several times over during the life of its operational career?

Think outside the box and try to grasp what "the best" really means. It doesn't have to be the fastest, biggest, deadliest or even carry a bomb load, but look at how it contributed to the war effort, the effect it left on aviation history, how it compared to it's peers and finally its cost effectivness to operate. There is one clear winner here, the DC-3/ C-47.

 

[Kryten]

You guys are right, I was just being contentious, and as the Tiffie rarely gets a mention I thought I would give it a MID.

Mike.

 

[zoomar]

And although it contributed greatly to the war effort, did it bring any technological or design breakthroughs that became the benchmark in ALL aircraft for the next 70 years? Was it designed in such a way that those who were completing maintenance on the aircraft were able to do so with minimal equipment? And lastly, did it bring longevity to the point where the aircraft actually paid for itself several times over during the life of its operational career?

Think outside the box and try to grasp what "the best" really means. It doesn't have to be the fastest, biggest, deadliest or even carry a bomb load, but look at how it contributed to the war effort, the effect it left on aviation history, how it compared to it's peers and finally its cost effectivness to operate. There is one clear winner here, the DC-3/ C-47.

I disagree with your definition of "best", which to me sounds more like "greatest". I would agree with you that the DC-3/C-47 is probably the "greatest" fixed wing aircraft of all time, period, but that doesn't equate to "best". Even by the early post-war period, the DC-3 was probably no longer the "best" transport plane in the air. As you imply, being the "best" at something means it can be compared via meaningful measurement with its peers. The C-47's legitimate peers during the WW2 period were planes like the Ju-52, C-46, SM-72 variants, etc, and in that regard we can legitimately call it the "best". There is no way one can say the C-47 is "best" if one expands its group of peers to include planes like the Bf-109, Spitfire, B-17, etc for whom the measurement standards are different. One may consider it a "greater" plane than these (because this is to some extent a subjective call based on more than simply measurable performance), but it makes no sense to say it's a"better" plane than the Bf-109, because the way you measure quality in a fighter is different. To use a metaphor with sports, One can say the LA Lakers are the "best" basketball team in the USA if they win more games than any other NBA team and win the championship. It would be impossible to legitimately use the term "best" if one wanted to compare the Lakers with football or hockey teams. One could say they were the "greatest" team, perhaps, but not the best. By the way I am NOT a Lakers fan.

 

[Kurfürst]

And although it contributed greatly to the war effort, did it bring any technological or design breakthroughs that became the benchmark in ALL aircraft for the next 70 years? Was it designed in such a way that those who were completing maintenance on the aircraft were able to do so with minimal equipment? And lastly, did it bring longevity to the point where the aircraft actually paid for itself several times over during the life of its operational career?

Well it did bring some very interesting advances - first of all it creates a whole new class of aircraft, close support ones, specially designed for the task. Its legacy is clearly there even todaz with the A-10/Su-25 and a dozen small prop/jet types like the Pucará. All of these were designated mud movers, quite unlike Stukas, Tiffies, Bolts hastily converted to the do the task.

Construction wise, it also brought something new, as the armor plates were integrated into the structure, rather than just being an afterthough, with steel plates bolted onto the aluminium skin..

 

[parsifal]

The C-47 was in my opinion the best transport aircraft during the war. It was a supremely reliable, with good range and payload, able to operate under the most appalling conditions.

And then one needs to ask what is the most important mission that aircraft can undertake. the relative importance for mission types varies depending on the situation one finds oneself in. on the eastern front, for example, pure fighter ops were relatively inneffective, and therfore pure fighters were not that important. i ackowledge they wrre necessary, and that the germans in particular notched up massive tallies, but this had zero effect on the outcome of battles. transport aircraft were somewhat important, as they helped forward elements to remain supplied as the advance progresswd. level bombers had some impact as well, but the queen of the battlefield werre the ground attack aircraft. the vast frontages lessened the impact of fighters in their operations, and their effect on ground battles were often critical.

switch now to somewhere like the battles over germany. here it is arguable between fighters and heavy bombers as to which was the more important though most of the comptempary and post war theorists argue that it was the bombers that were the more important aircraft. the german efforts at fighter defence is seen as a strategic blind alley by most theorists, though the allied equivalent - the raf fighters over britain in 1940 appears to be the exception to the rule

if we look at the land battles over western europe, ground attack a/c are again important, though one has to include fb amd fighters in there as well. once again, though not operating at the very top of the importance meter, but important nevertheless are the transports one again.

in north africa the transports are supremely important, for both sides. once again, fighters tend to drop to the bottom of the pile

in the pacific, it is generally accepted that the most significant types were transports and recon aircraft . naval strike aircraft are also of notable significance

if you look at the relative importance of the main types, and apply some sort of score to that role, the conclesion to be reached is that transports are the most best airraft during the eaer, because they have role in nearly every different category of theatre. fighters and ground support aircraft arespectqaculer, but they tend to be specialised. relatively speaking they less important. since c-47s are probably the best overall transports of the ware, and transports are the most important category of aircraft, it can be argued that the c-47 was the best a/c of wwii

 

[jrw1238]

I couldn't have said this better! Some of my earliest childood memories involve my dad often taking me and my sister to our local municipal airport to watch Central Airlines DC-3s taxi right up to the terminal. The sound of those big radials revving and idling and feeling of the propwash blowing my hair was simply transcendent.

This reminded me of when I was a child and my grandparents would would take me to, then. Berry Field in Nashville, TN. American and Eastern Airlines flew in there at that ime. I like you loved the sound of those big radials