Best WW2 Fighter TIMELINE

[GrauGeist]

"...Unless you want to fly off a carrier, or project power out more than about 200 miles.... "

Which the Japanese more-or-less wanted to do ..

Seems to me they did that pretty well in the beginning, too...

 

[Greyman]

Didnt early E versions have a controllable prop rather than a CSU.

Yeah, the way I understand it:

109A to 109B (early): fixed pitch
109B (later) to 109E: variable pitch
109F to 109K: constant speed

 

[tomo pauk]

Sorry for my ignorance, but how much a variation was possible for the 109E's prop?

 

[Greyman]

According to the RAE, 22.5 degrees to 90 degrees.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks.
In other words, constant-speed prop will be the other name for a variable pitch prop?

 

[Greyman]

Not really. I suppose you could say a constant-speed prop is a variable pitch prop, but a variable pitch prop isn't necessarily a constant speed prop.

In the 109E the propeller pitch was controlled by the pilot, this (depending on the speed/throttle of the aircraft) changed the engine speed (RPM).
In a Rotol Spitfire, the pilot set his RPM and the constant-speed unit maintained said speed by automatically adjusting the propeller blade pitch.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You will also have a prop govenor on a constant speed prop installation

 

[tomo pauk]

Okay, thanks people

 

[silence]

Ok, to settle this let's all just agree that whichever plane I say is the best at a given point on the timeline is the best and leave it at that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Where is the Japanese Zero in all of this ...? In December, 1941, it is my understanding that nothing could touch the Zero in the hands of a skilled IJN pilot. And those pilots were experienced and very skillful, IMHO.

Only if you tried to fight with it at lower airspeeds and did not use the vertical to take its turning ability away - IMO the Zero was probably the most over-rated fighter of WW2

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...Only if you tried to fight with it at lower airspeeds and did not use the vertical to take its turning ability away - IMO the Zero was probably the most over-rated fighter of WW2"

That may be a fair comment - you're a pilot, I'm not - but I think the Z's great range gave it (in the early days) great strategic advantage - combined with Ninja-like IJN pilots - turning up where it was least expected.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"...Only if you tried to fight with it at lower airspeeds and did not use the vertical to take its turning ability away - IMO the Zero was probably the most over-rated fighter of WW2"

That may be a fair comment - you're a pilot, I'm not - but I think the Z's great range gave it (in the early days) great strategic advantage - combined with Ninja-like IJN pilots - turning up where it was least expected.

It did to a point - after 1942 the Zero for the most part became gun fodder unless it got the jump on an unsuspected opponent or flown against a rookie who was suckered to get into a turning fight with it. There were also logistic and interchangeability problems that also hampered its operation. Even the most conservative kill/ loss numbers against it shows how it eventually because obsolete (and yes, pilot training was also a factor but would not have change the final outcome much IMO)

 

[davparlr]

But the F4u-4 would be a real contender in the late 44 early 45 timeframe

The first operational F4U-4s did not reach Okinawa until May '45 according to "America's Hundred Thousand".

 

[MikeGazdik]

My list would be something like this:

1939- Me109
1940- Spitfire
1941- 3 way split depending on theatre, and what part of the year, Spitfire, Me109, Zero
1942- Fw190
1943- F4U
1944- P-51 ETO, F6F PTO
1945- P-51D and late F4U-4

Just off the top of my head, and considering their overall impact / importance where deployed.

 

[cherry blossom]

Only if you tried to fight with it at lower airspeeds and did not use the vertical to take its turning ability away - IMO the Zero was probably the most over-rated fighter of WW2

I think that the Zero is being slightly underrated here. As the range of the A6M2 was better than the Bf 110C, they were probably the best long range escort fighters available from some time in 1940 until the P-38 was ready for combat in late 1942.

Preproduction A6M2s carried their first escort mission on 19th August 1940 A6M Zero Fighter | World War II Database although they only saw combat on 13th September 1940. Those aircraft weren't fully equipped for carrier use but were otherwise similar to later A6M2s. I agree that they would have been inferior to the Bf 109F or Fw 190A at the end of 1941 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/po...-campaign-1941-1942-a-31741-3.html#post989429 and I suspect that they would have been inferior to a Spitfire V over Europe. However, they proved decisively superior to Hurricane IIs over Ceylon in April 1942 and were probably superior to worn out Spitfire Vs with Volkes Filters over Darwin in Early 1943 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...-spitfires-vs-zeros-the-darwin-debacle/page-7, Spitfire vs Zero | Darwin Spitfires, the real battle for Australia - Spitfire fighter pilots height tactical advantage superior . I suspect that the Zero would have done better against the F4F over Guadalcanal if they had not had to fight with their drop tank. Of course, by 1944 the Zero was obsolete but even then it was not completely simple for Hellcats over Iwo Jima to shoot down a single A6M5 flown by a one eyed pilot Saburo Sakai in Iwo Jima.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think that the Zero is being slightly underrated here. As the range of the A6M2 was better than the Bf 110C, they were probably the best long range escort fighters available from some time in 1940 until the P-38 was ready for combat in late 1942.

What good is range when your opponent severely exploits your weaknesses and outclasses you the minute you enter combat???

Preproduction A6M2s carried their first escort mission on 19th August 1940 A6M Zero Fighter | World War II Database although they only saw combat on 13th September 1940. Those aircraft weren't fully equipped for carrier use but were otherwise similar to later A6M2s. I agree that they would have been inferior to the Bf 109F or Fw 190A at the end of 1941 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/po...-campaign-1941-1942-a-31741-3.html#post989429 and I suspect that they would have been inferior to a Spitfire V over Europe. However, they proved decisively superior to Hurricane IIs over Ceylon in April 1942 and were probably superior to worn out Spitfire Vs with Volkes Filters over Darwin in Early 1943 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...-spitfires-vs-zeros-the-darwin-debacle/page-7, Spitfire vs Zero | Darwin Spitfires, the real battle for Australia - Spitfire fighter pilots height tactical advantage superior . I suspect that the Zero would have done better against the F4F over Guadalcanal if they had not had to fight with their drop tank. Of course, by 1944 the Zero was obsolete but even then it was not completely simple for Hellcats over Iwo Jima to shoot down a single A6M5 flown by a one eyed pilot Saburo Sakai in Iwo Jima.

Over Celon Hurricanes were still trying to dogfight with the Zero and were not much faster than them. With or without drop tanks the outcome over Guadalcanal would have been the same as by that time tactical lessons learned showed the Zero's weaknesses.

Facts remains - the Zero at higher airspeeds had the maneuverability of a brick and after mid 1942 US fighter pilots were discouraged in getting into dogfights and entering combat situations at lower airspeeds (I believe 300 mph was a threshold).

Aside from the mauling the US Navy bestowed on the Zero, read about the 475th FG and what they did to the Zero (and Oscar).

As good as the Zero was in its element, I stand by the claim that it was overrated, if anything the Oscar was the much better maneuvering fighter under 250 mph.

 

[GrauGeist]

Might not hurt to place the Soviet YaK-9 in that timeline

 

[Greyman]

If I could be allowed another slight thread divergence ...

A question for those in the know about aircraft engines; here is a snippet from an A&AEE report on the Tomahawk:

'As in other American aircraft no automatic boost control is fitted, and the boost must be hand adjusted with the throttle lever all the time which is a considerable disadvantage - particularly in a fighter aircraft.'

Can anyone give an example of what would cause the boost to change in flight? Variations in speed or altitude? Exactly what is happening in a Tomahawk that isn't happening in, say, a Spitfire?

Thanks.

 

[bob44]

If I could be allowed another slight thread divergence ...

A question for those in the know about aircraft engines; here is a snippet from an A&AEE report on the Tomahawk:

'As in other American aircraft no automatic boost control is fitted, and the boost must be hand adjusted with the throttle lever all the time which is a considerable disadvantage - particularly in a fighter aircraft.'


Can anyone give an example of what would cause the boost to change in flight? Variations in speed or altitude? Exactly what is happening in a Tomahawk that isn't happening in, say, a Spitfire?

Thanks.

As you climb, the air pressure decreases and you have to add more throttle to keep the MP or boost up.
The automatic boost maintains the MP/boost, within a certain range, that the pilot sets with the throttle.

 

[Greyman]

As you climb, the air pressure decreases and you have to add more throttle to keep the MP or boost up.
The automatic boost maintains the MP/boost, within a certain range, that the pilot sets with the throttle.

Thanks bob, that does sound like quite a hassle in a combat situation.

I also (eventually) read that the lack of automatic boost control caused the boost pressure to temporarily 'surge' when the Tomahawk's throttle was moved up quickly below critical alt. This over-run was by about 2 inches HG and was greater than in a comparable British engine (I assume they meant a Merlin).