Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

[Royzee617]

What criteria does anyone suggest for distinguishing 'best'?

Kills? Sortie count? Numbers on strength? Longevity? Design? Aesthetics?

One thing is for sure the Spitfire was effective at the start of WW2 and remained so at its end. The only comparable fighter was the Bf109.

IMHO it is often down to personal opinion.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One thing is for sure the Spitfire was effective at the start of WW2 and remained so at its end. The only comparable fighter was the Bf109.

Are you crazy. So you are saying that a Bf-109 was the only thing comparable when a Fw-190 was better then a 109?

 

[Anonymous]

but at the same time he's trying to present an argument, if you're arguing a point you use your resorces to your own advantage, you're unlikely to make a point in an argument, then cancel it out with a contradicting argument............

And yes RG_Lunatic does this also, but he will not admit it.

Alder, I almost always give the source link or present the images of the relevant pages. When have I picked a piece of data out of an obscure source and quoted it out of context w/o providing a link or the full content of the document being referenced?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Royzee617]

What I meant was that just about only the Spitfire and Bf109 were effective fighters throughout the whole of WW2... the FW190 was not operational until 1941 (I think).

That said both the Spit and 109 had changed considerably in that time... remarkable testament to their original design. Can you imagine any modern plane being so versatile or with such capacity for improvement?

The Zero was still around but only worth using as a suicide plane by 1944-45.

The Hurricane was a great plane but really of an older generation compared to the Spit technically speaking.

It is also remarkable that the RAF chose to keep on accepting improved Spitfires instead of favouring successors... what does this say about Hawker's Tiffies and Tempests? Just that the Spit was brilliant at everything.... not quite.

The key to the Spit's longevity has as much to do with the engine as the aerodynamics. We'd have lost WW2 without Rolls Royce and their Merlin (et seq).... Spit, Lanc, Hurri, Mustang etc etc... stupefyingly brilliant! Lucky for us they ran in the Schneider Trophy Race pre-WW2.

Personally I would have liked to see the MB5 operational.... and as for the Meteor.... urgh! Talk about functional when alongside the elegant Me 262. Not a "real man's plane" a 'stopgap' that is still around...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

all those points are very valid there, although just as a note the merlin wasn't used in the Schneider trophy races........

 

[cheddar cheese]

However I think the 190 had a far more versatile airframe than that of the Spitfire or 109.

 

[mosquitoman]

The Meteor looked good, the later marks with a radar for nightfighting looked disgusting though

 

[Royzee617]

The point I was trying to make was that ONLY the Spit and 109 saw the whole war through as frontline aircraft. The Wurger is a splendid plane but arrived later.

To throw a spanner or two in the works... wasn't the Mustang also in RAF service as a fighter (?) and what about the Mossie? That was a fighter too...

 

[mosquitoman]

The Mossie was a fighter-bomber/nightfighter when it came to that side of things. It wasn't a straight day fighter

 

[Anonymous]

The point I was trying to make was that ONLY the Spit and 109 saw the whole war through as frontline aircraft. The Wurger is a splendid plane but arrived later.

To throw a spanner or two in the works... wasn't the Mustang also in RAF service as a fighter (?) and what about the Mossie? That was a fighter too...

The P-47 and P-38 saw service in Europe from the US entry to end of war. Does the fact the USA didn't start fighting in 1939 exclude it? Does this also exclude the Soviets and Japanese?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[mosquitoman]

No, but we're talking about the best BRITISH fighter, not any other country's air arm

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well look at it this way, if a country joined the conflict a week before it ended and had planes flying in the conflict for that whole week, were those planes there from the start of the conflict 'till the end?? because that's the way your theory works.........

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I'd agree that was not a valid contender Lanc. But anything over two years service certainly is.

Point taken Moss, though I don't know how length of service became a requirement of "best".

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well perhaps not length of service but service history cirtainly plays a huge part.........

 

[Anonymous]

well perhaps not length of service but service history cirtainly plays a huge part.........

Well, that really goes to "signficance" rather than "best" I think.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well it depends on your exact definition of "best"........

 

[Anonymous]

well it depends on your exact definition of "best"........

I think "best" clearly means "superior", which means which would you rather have, X units of item A or item B, with no other considerations involved (such as cost, service life, etc...).

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but again all the other things like cost and service life all have to be considdered...............

 

[Anonymous]

but again all the other things like cost and service life all have to be considdered...............

Not when the criteria is "best". Those things are considered when the criteria is "most signficant" or "most effective".

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well look at it from the account or manufacture's point of view, to them the best aircraft is the one that best value for money or the easiest to manufacture, what i'm trying to say is that untill we lay down a fair definition of the word "best", your opinion is based entirely on your viewpoint...........