Best WW2 Fighter TIMELINE

[parsifal]

my timeline

1939: Bf 109E
1940: Spit II
1941: Zero
1942: FW 190
1943: LA-5
1944: P-51
1945; Meteor

Meteor might be a strange choice, because people might say "why not the Me 262". It could easily go that way, but the development of the Meteor continued after the armistice and in my opinion overtook the 262 in its later configurations.

 

[tomo pauk]

Zero has plenty of advantages if the enemy does not have a well developed command control network, while the opposing fighter force does not have any advantages in performance, numbers and tactics. Meaning, for 1941 and begin of 1942 - fine for Asia/Pacific and Soviet union, but a cannon fodder for UK and Germany from 1940 on.
The La-5 was inferior to the Spitfire VIII/IX and German fighters, especially Fw-190 that was in it's prime in 1943. The USA have had also some tough competitors, like F4U-1 and P-38G/H, and La-5 cannot compete versus those at meduim and high altitudes, and it's of no use on longer ranges. The P-51A/Mustang II is faster at all altitudes, and it was offering more than twice the range.

The Spitfire VIII was maybe the best fighter around in 1943 - good, or better performance than others at all altitudes, useful range and punch, no vices.

 

[parsifal]

i kinda looked at the issue differently to most. Any number of fighters were technically excellent, but which fighters were the best fit and made the most difference in their allotted time frame. in each case the fighters i listed held a decisive advantage at some point in their time period.....

me 109e: decisive in the early opening campaigns up to july 1940. Gave germany a commanding position at the beginning of the war, and demolished nearly all the opposition ranged against it up to that point.

spit II was the aircraft that halted the german initiative and forced them to abandon their assault on Britain, or at least was the aircraft available in some numbers that technogically was the best in the Allied camp.

Zero december throughout 1941 over china and in the early days of the Pacific achieved fantastic advantages for the Japanese, and destroyed the myth of western supremacy in asia. both technically and pschologically it was a shattering achievement

FW 190 was a technical marvel, that for a time was able to hold the increasing power of the allies and the soviets at bay throughout 1942, despite being heavily outnumbered. eventually it was outclased and outnumbered, but not for a good part of 1942.

1943 belongs to the La5 because it best symbolises the growing strength and capability of the VVS. Even though ther wewre technically superior aircraft, none had as important a role as the VVS fighters, of which the LA5 9and its derivatives) was the best. In 1943, the soviets at last began to apply their airpower effectively, and as part of the ground war, were critical to turning the tide.

The p-51 needs no explanation in my opinion. in 1944, I believe it did more to utterly destroy german air power than any other single type.

meteor was my choice for 1945, over the me 262, even though the 262 was a better performer. my opinion is that the meteor was a better rounded design, able to be improved and more 'rational' than its german counterpart. i expect ther will be considerable disagreement over that, but meteors continued in front line service through to the 1970's for some smaller air forces. i dont thiink the me 262 was really capable of that sort of longevity

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Zero december throughout 1941 over china and in the early days of the Pacific achieved fantastic advantages for the Japanese, and destroyed the myth of western supremacy in asia. both technically and pschologically it was a shattering achievement

That sums it up right there. By mid/ late 1942 the myth was well broken - One of Richard Bong's first missions with the 39th FS in late December 1942 gave a sign of what was to come. From "December 1942, Today in World War II Pacific History."


"In their first significant action in the Pacific, a dozen P-38s of the 39th Fighter Squadron, 35th Fighter Group engage some 24 Japanese aircraft, claiming nine Zekes and two Vals shot down for one P-38 damaged. Pilots included 2nd Lt. RIchard Bong and Capt. Tommy Lynch, Lt. Ken Sparks and 2nd Lt. John Mangas. This was the first aerial combat by the P-38 Lightning in the South West Pacific. Seven enemy planes were immediately shot down, with Mangas officially credited with one. Two other four-plane flights of the 39th FS joined the melee thereafter, claiming another six."

Was the Zero still a deadly fighter after the introduction of aircraft like the P-38? Absolutely! The point here is the the myth of it's absolute supremacy was broken but the legend lived on, perhaps to instill on green fighter pilots that it could be deadly if you choose to dogfight with it at low speeds.

OK - underated in it's "Myth," overrated in it's actual combat record.

 

[GrauGeist]

I find it funny how many mistook the KI-43 for the Zero, such was the Zero's "reputation"

 

[pattern14]

i kinda looked at the issue differently to most. Any number of fighters were technically excellent, but which fighters were the best fit and made the most difference in their allotted time frame. in each case the fighters i listed held a decisive advantage at some point in their time period.....

me 109e: decisive in the early opening campaigns up to july 1940. Gave germany a commanding position at the beginning of the war, and demolished nearly all the opposition ranged against it up to that point.

spit II was the aircraft that halted the german initiative and forced them to abandon their assault on Britain, or at least was the aircraft available in some numbers that technogically was the best in the Allied camp.

Zero december throughout 1941 over china and in the early days of the Pacific achieved fantastic advantages for the Japanese, and destroyed the myth of western supremacy in asia. both technically and pschologically it was a shattering achievement

FW 190 was a technical marvel, that for a time was able to hold the increasing power of the allies and the soviets at bay throughout 1942, despite being heavily outnumbered. eventually it was outclased and outnumbered, but not for a good part of 1942.

1943 belongs to the La5 because it best symbolises the growing strength and capability of the VVS. Even though ther wewre technically superior aircraft, none had as important a role as the VVS fighters, of which the LA5 9and its derivatives) was the best. In 1943, the soviets at last began to apply their airpower effectively, and as part of the ground war, were critical to turning the tide.

The p-51 needs no explanation in my opinion. in 1944, I believe it did more to utterly destroy german air power than any other single type.

meteor was my choice for 1945, over the me 262, even though the 262 was a better performer. my opinion is that the meteor was a better rounded design, able to be improved and more 'rational' than its german counterpart. i expect ther will be considerable disagreement over that, but meteors continued in front line service through to the 1970's for some smaller air forces. i dont thiink the me 262 was really capable of that sort of longevity

Not so much disagreement as a different perspective. The Me 262 was destined to be evolved into a high performance fighter, with the operational model only serving as an interim. The proposed Hg Me 262 was a very advanced aircraft for its time, but of course, never happened. The Meteor, like the P80, was comparatively aerodynamically static, and basically made obsolete as a front line fighter by 1950. The Mig 15 and F86 were the way of the future, although the Meteor did serve well for many years. No-one is disputing the importance of the Meteor, or its achievements. As I mentioned once in another thread, it would have been interesting to consider how the Mk1 Meteor would have handled the job that the 262 had thrust upon it. It is pretty unlikely it would have fared as well in the same role. What destroyed German air power in 1944 was lack of trained pilots, fuel, and total mismanagement more so than the P51. The Luftwaffe basically imploded by the middle of that year. Only my opinion of course, but I thought the Focke wulf Ta 152 was pretty well up there with the best of 1945. Not that they made a scrap of difference to anything, they still represented the pinnacle of Luftwaffe piston engined design. Same old story...no spare parts, no fuel, complete allied air superiority, no rotation of pilots etc. Good topic , with a million variables and points of view.

 

[GrauGeist]

People tend to forget that the Me262 did serve beyond WWII, in the Czech airforce (built by Avia) until 1951, when it was retired from service.

 

[fastmongrel]

I find it funny how many mistook the KI-43 for the Zero, such was the Zero's "reputation"

A bit like every LW pilot in the BoB was shot down by a Spitfire

 

[pattern14]

People tend to forget that the Me262 did serve beyond WWII, in the Czech airforce (built by Avia) until 1951, when it was retired from service.

Thats correct; I think only 9 were built, and they were primarily used as trainers. The Japanese version, the "Kikka", was a very much de-tuned version with performance on a par with piston engined fighters. I'm aware that the Germans shipped jet engines and technology via U-Boat to Japan, but I don't know if the Kikka was equipped with Jumo/BMW jets or a locally produced copy. Either way they were at least 100mph slower, and lightly armed by comparison. Their wing configuration was more conventional as well, with little sweep. They never became operational, and at least one exists in a museum in Japan.

 

[GrauGeist]

There were two Japanese "versions" of the Me262.

The jet that was going to be a copy of the Me262 was the KI-201, while it was going to be the closest copy, it's development came too late and the engines needed for it weren't fully developed by the end of the war. There was some debate as to wether construction had started on the KI-201 by war's, but no evidence ever came to light that it had.

The other, the Nakajima Kikka was planned to be armed, but never reached that stage. It looked similiar to the Me262, but differed in several respects, being smaller was one of those differences. It was also powered by the Ne-20 that was reverse engineered from Plans and a drawing of the BMW003 because the engines that the Japanese purchased never reached Japan, as the sub carrying them was sunk. Only two complete airframes were completed by war's end.

As far as the Avia S-92, they made 9 single seat and 3 two-seaters. They were considered front-line fighters for the first several years but as Soviet hardware became available, these became trainers before being retired.

 

[nuuumannn]

Was the Zero still a deadly fighter after the introduction of aircraft like the P-38? Absolutely! The point here is the the myth of it's absolute supremacy was broken but the legend lived on, perhaps to instill on green fighter pilots that it could be deadly if you choose to dogfight with it at low speeds.

Agree, with you Joe, although I don't believe it was over rated in its first two years of service. The problem with the Zero was that it was around for far longer than it should have been; the IJN should have produced a worthy successor sooner than they did. When it first appeared however, if we remove the myth and reputation from the equation for a moment and focus on the facts, the A6M was one of the best fighters in the world in service in the 1940 to 1942 timeframe and certainly the best carrier based fighter in terms of range and performance.

The Zero's myth of invincibility prior to the Allies encountering it in combat came about from sketchy intel and a lack of knowledge of the aircraft and Japanese equipment in general. Its reputation was enhanced when US pilots encountered it in combat for the first time and as discussed elsewhere it was through more informed inntelligence and superior tactics that that myth was exploded. The fact remained that the Zero was still a formidable adversary even once the myth was exploded; it was indeed a very good design, but was subject to enormous hype and this has coloured people's perception of it ever since.

Unfortunately myths perpetuate themselves, so it gets even more invincible with every telling. It would not have gained such a reputation if it were merely average, or even very good; it was however, excellent and that is often overlooked because better fighters and better training was introduced that had the measure of it, because it was around longer than it should have been.

The issue of being shot down by a Zero and not a Ki-43 is slightly different to that of being shot down by a Spitfire and not a Hurricane. Part of the mistaking everything for Zeroes was due as much to a lack of knowledge of Japanese aircraft types at the outbreak of the Pacific war as it was because of the Zero's reputation. There were two types of Japanese aircraft; Zeroes and Nakajimas. Anything that wasn't a Zero was a Nakajima.

As for the Me 262, lordy... Certainly the most promising and potentially formidable fighter of the war, but it's been stated so many times on this forum already why it couldn't live up to its promise.

 

[nuuumannn]

the pilot set his RPM and the constant-speed unit maintained said speed by automatically adjusting the propeller blade pitch.

Just to add to CS props, like Joe stated, the CS governor plays its part. In a nutshell, the propeller pitch lever, or the Condition lever as it is called today is set on take off and changes in power are carried out using the Power lever, or throttle, which controls the engine speed. The governor senses any power changes and changes the propeller blade angle. This happens because the governor has a rotating flywheel with 'L' shaped weights at its extremities. This is driven by engine rpm, which when that changes, causes the 'L' weights to pivot outwards as speed increases. This movement causes the shaft on which the flywheel is mounted to move in its casing, which opens ports that enables oil at engine pressure to flow into the prop hub through the transfer tube in the centre of the prop shaft, to apply pressure on a piston, which alters the blade angle. The constant speed part is that prop rpm does not alter, despite the engine going hell for leather, although thrust being produced by the propeller increases or decreases accordingly. This reduces wear on prop components.

These days all of this is done by computer through the PCU or Propeller Control Unit, to which the governor is mechanically linked and managed by the ECU or Engine Control Unit. Modern turboprops have switches with automatic settings, which mean that once the levers are set, the switch is turned to the corresponding setting and the pilot sits back and enjoys the morning paper brought to him by the smiling hostie.

Different prop types have different means of actuating blade angles, but governors haven't changed in design for years; the basic principal of the Woodward governor introduced on Hamilton Std props back in the Thirties is still in use. Woodward still build CS governors for turboprops today. Hartzell put the Woodward governor into licence production also.

 

[Waynos]

I don't agree with the general notion that the 262 was more advanced than the Meteor.

To me they are generally on par with each other. The wing of the 262 is litte different from the 109 when you examine it and it's fabled 'sweep' was no more than an aerodynamic fix which offered no performance increase. The DC-3 has a similar 'sweep'

On the other hand the 262 was designed, and flown initially, as a tail dragger and still placed the pilot on the cg just like the piston fighters, where Gloster had already moved to the tricycle gear plus pilot up front layout that future fighters would use.

Of the two the 262 was, I think, a more efficient design with it's lower drag, short chord wing, but in 1945 the Meteor F.3 was the more 'usable' fighter. But technologically I don't think there was anything in it.

That's not to say that Glosters were as clued up as Messerschmitt on high performance design in 1945, far from it, the developments of the 262 and new designs in the pipeline illustrate that point by comparison with the Gloster E1/44. I just refer to the technological characteristics of these two models which had been in development for several years.

 

[nuuumannn]

I don't agree with the general notion that the 262 was more advanced than the Meteor.

In context you are right, Waynos, but the 262 is held as being more advanced in concept rather than technologically than the Meteor. Despite the reason for its swept wings, the fact that it had them is one reason why it is considered more advanced, its axial flow engines are another. Of course we all know that the British centrifugal flow engines were more reliable and the German axial flow engines were made of inferior materials, which led to very short times between overhaul, but it is because the 262's engines were axial flow. Both features; swept wings and axial flow engines has enabled the 262 to be considered advanced in hindsight because both features were and are still incorporated in jet fighter design to this day.

Both aircraft had their fair share of issues, however; the Meteor F.1 suffered from directional snaking, which made bringing its guns to bear difficult, although 616 Sqn pilots did not think this was so much of a drawback, the lack of harmonisation of the aircraft's controls didn't seem to bother service pilots too much either. Also the Hisso cannon installation in the F.1 was initially troublesome, although this was corrected by September 1944. Perhaps the biggest complaint about the early Meteors that I have read is that they were underpowered, as was the 262. Once the Derwent I at 2,000 lb thrust (the Welland was 1,700 lbs thrust) was installed in the Meteor III the issue of power wasn't as great, but the Meatbox needed more thrust. The first 15 Meteor IIIs were powered by Wellands and can be distinguished by the longer protruding exhaust port aft of the engine nacelles.

 

[pattern14]

There were two Japanese "versions" of the Me262.

The jet that was going to be a copy of the Me262 was the KI-201, while it was going to be the closest copy, it's development came too late and the engines needed for it weren't fully developed by the end of the war. There was some debate as to wether construction had started on the KI-201 by war's, but no evidence ever came to light that it had.

The other, the Nakajima Kikka was planned to be armed, but never reached that stage. It looked similiar to the Me262, but differed in several respects, being smaller was one of those differences. It was also powered by the Ne-20 that was reverse engineered from Plans and a drawing of the BMW003 because the engines that the Japanese purchased never reached Japan, as the sub carrying them was sunk. Only two complete airframes were completed by war's end.

As far as the Avia S-92, they made 9 single seat and 3 two-seaters. They were considered front-line fighters for the first several years but as Soviet hardware became available, these became trainers before being retired.

Thanks for the more concise info on this subject. A lot of this stuff seems to be overlooked as it does not have the glamour factor ( for want of a better description)

 

[pattern14]

In context you are right, Waynos, but the 262 is held as being more advanced in concept rather than technologically than the Meteor. Despite the reason for its swept wings, the fact that it had them is one reason why it is considered more advanced, its axial flow engines are another. Of course we all know that the British centrifugal flow engines were more reliable and the German axial flow engines were made of inferior materials, which led to very short times between overhaul, but it is because the 262's engines were axial flow. Both features; swept wings and axial flow engines has enabled the 262 to be considered advanced in hindsight because both features were and are still incorporated in jet fighter design to this day.

Both aircraft had their fair share of issues, however; the Meteor F.1 suffered from directional snaking, which made bringing its guns to bear difficult, although 616 Sqn pilots did not think this was so much of a drawback, the lack of harmonisation of the aircraft's controls didn't seem to bother service pilots too much either. Also the Hisso cannon installation in the F.1 was initially troublesome, although this was corrected by September 1944. Perhaps the biggest complaint about the early Meteors that I have read is that they were underpowered, as was the 262. Once the Derwent I at 2,000 lb thrust (the Welland was 1,700 lbs thrust) was installed in the Meteor III the issue of power wasn't as great, but the Meatbox needed more thrust. The first 15 Meteor IIIs were powered by Wellands and can be distinguished by the longer protruding exhaust port aft of the engine nacelles.

I read somewhere that the tag "meatbox" refers to the immediate postwar years when in excess of 400 pilots were killed in meteors; do you have any more accurate figures and reasons for such a high number of "peacetime" fatalities? I've read about the two meteors colliding in the clouds prior to the end of WW2, but it seems an extraordinarily high number of casualties after hostilities ceased.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Aside from the swept wings can someone REALLY tell us what made the Me 262 soooo advanced than its contemporaries?

 

[GrauGeist]

Aside from the swept wings can someone REALLY tell us what made the Me 262 soooo advanced than its contemporaries?

It looked badass?

 

[Juha]

I read somewhere that the tag "meatbox" refers to the immediate postwar years when in excess of 400 pilots were killed in meteors; do you have any more accurate figures and reasons for such a high number of "peacetime" fatalities? I've read about the two meteors colliding in the clouds prior to the end of WW2, but it seems an extraordinarily high number of casualties after hostilities ceased.

One reason of the high peace-time losses with Meteors was that RAF stubbornly kept engine-off training in its Meteor syllabus. Later it was estimated that that training killed many more pilots than it saved.

 

[pattern14]

Aside from the swept wings can someone REALLY tell us what made the Me 262 soooo advanced than its contemporaries?

Well, if you wade through the urban myths of nazi technical superiority, there is some relevance in the claims made about this plane. It DID outperform all other allied aircraft at the time, and compared very favourably in post war evaluation. In terms of outright speed, it was bettered by the Me 163 Komet, and He 162 Spatz, but faster than anything in the allied camp ( while the jet engines held together...) Lots of firsts of course; first operational Jet to bring down a manned, armed opponent. First Jet aces all flew Me 262's; 22 I believe, but that is still being debated I'm sure. Most heavily armed fighter/interceptor ( 4 x 30mm cannons, 24 R4M rockets), leading edge slats that were later used in the F86 prototypes, and the projected potential of the HG high performance jet as a natural evolution of this plane. Its' stable mate, the Ar234, was overflying the UK about the same time, without detection, even though the allies had total air superiority. Of course, you can choose to believe that test pilot Eric Brown did not know what he was talking about when he stated that the 262 would have made "cats meat" out of the Meteor...ditto Adolf Galland years later when he flew the Meteor in Argentina. They were on opposing sides, flew both planes ( albeit later versions of the Meteor, which by rights should have benefitted from development). There will always be lively debate on this subject, as someone discovers some more information previously unearthed. I really don't think the Me 262 was THAT advanced, but it did have the Jump on everyone else at the time, even though the allies supposedly were in no great rush to build an air superiority jet of their own. After all, the war was being won with conventional weapons, not the wonder weapons of the third reich. And didn't I read in "Watsons Whizzers" ( America's first unofficial jet fighter squadron all equipped with Me 262's, as the P80 was grounded at the time with "technical" difficulties) that Howard Hughes was disuaded from entering The Me 262 in a post war race, in case it embarrassed the P80?? Then again, I also read that the same story was fabricated to try and prompt the US government to invest more money in building a better fighter jet???Hmmmmm. It just goes on and on. Still, when I go to an airport,and see the twin engined axial flow turbojets in underslung nacelles of cruciform tailed swept wing modern jets, I don't see a Meteor, or P80, or Airacomet, or Vampire, or any other first generation jet. And yes, it looked badass