The Best Propeller Aircraft of WW2

[stona]

Pilot skill is a factor but the original premise is fair enough. The best pilot in an uncompetitive aircraft is going to have a hard time surviving. The whole point of the expensive and long training programmes implemented by all combatants was to get the average pilot to a level of proficiency at which he could survive long enough operationally to become an effective combat pilot.

You can still compare aircraft performance taking pilot skill as a level playing field. I think, relating to another thread, that a fictional 'average pilot' would do better in a Spitfire XIV than a Bf 109 K-4 for a variety of reasons, not all related directly to the respective performance of the two types. I would therefore rate the Spitfire above the Messerschmitt.

Put Erich Hartmann in the K-4 and a newly qualified wet behind the ears RAF type in the Spitfire and the real world result would almost certainly be different.

Herbert Weiss analysis of combat data led him to conclude that a pilot had an almost exactly 50:50 chance of surviving his first decisive combat. After five decisive encounters their chance of survival was increased by a factor of 20.

Only 5% of pilots score five victories or more. This 5% will go on to claim 40% of all aerial victories.

These figures are consistent for WW1, WW2 and the Korean conflict. This has led Stephen Bungay to write:

"The sky contains two very different groups of pilots: a small group of hunter killers and the majority who are hunted. Amongst the hunted are the experienced who know how to get away from the hunter killers, and who also hunt themselves without often killing. And there are novices who either learn survival fast or simply provide the hunter killers with targets."

In combat the pilot factor, given aircraft of at least comparable performance, is, as said above, the most important factor. This doesn't mean that performance comparisons can't be made.

All the modern training, the 'Top Gun' type of schools, are an effort to increase that 5% to a higher number, and to reduce the novices providing targets. There's not much evidence to determine whether it has or has not done that.

Cheers

Steve

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Pilot skill is a factor but the original premise is fair enough. The best pilot in an uncompetitive aircraft is going to have a hard time surviving. The whole point of the expensive and long training programmes implemented by all combatants was to get the average pilot to a level of proficiency at which he could survive long enough operationally to become an effective combat pilot.

You can still compare aircraft performance taking pilot skill as a level playing field. I think, relating to another thread, that a fictional 'average pilot' would do better in a Spitfire XIV than a Bf 109 K-4 for a variety of reasons, not all related directly to the respective performance of the two types. I would therefore rate the Spitfire above the Messerschmitt.

Put Erich Hartmann in the K-4 and a newly qualified wet behind the ears RAF type in the Spitfire and the real world result would almost certainly be different.

Herbert Weiss analysis of combat data led him to conclude that a pilot had an almost exactly 50:50 chance of surviving his first decisive combat. After five decisive encounters their chance of survival was increased by a factor of 20.

Only 5% of pilots score five victories or more. This 5% will go on to claim 40% of all aerial victories.

These figures are consistent for WW1, WW2 and the Korean conflict. This has led Stephen Bungay to write:

"The sky contains two very different groups of pilots: a small group of hunter killers and the majority who are hunted. Amongst the hunted are the experienced who know how to get away from the hunter killers, and who also hunt themselves without often killing. And there are novices who either learn survival fast or simply provide the hunter killers with targets."

In combat the pilot factor, given aircraft of at least comparable performance, is, as said above, the most important factor. This doesn't mean that performance comparisons can't be made.

All the modern training, the 'Top Gun' type of schools, are an effort to increase that 5% to a higher number, and to reduce the novices providing targets. There's not much evidence to determine whether it has or has not done that.

Cheers

Steve

True...

 

[pbehn]

Pilot skill is a factor but the original premise is fair enough. The best pilot in an uncompetitive aircraft is going to have a hard time surviving. The whole point of the expensive and long training programmes implemented by all combatants was to get the average pilot to a level of proficiency at which he could survive long enough operationally to become an effective combat pilot.

You can still compare aircraft performance taking pilot skill as a level playing field. I think, relating to another thread, that a fictional 'average pilot' would do better in a Spitfire XIV than a Bf 109 K-4 for a variety of reasons, not all related directly to the respective performance of the two types. I would therefore rate the Spitfire above the Messerschmitt.

Put Erich Hartmann in the K-4 and a newly qualified wet behind the ears RAF type in the Spitfire and the real world result would almost certainly be different.

Herbert Weiss analysis of combat data led him to conclude that a pilot had an almost exactly 50:50 chance of surviving his first decisive combat. After five decisive encounters their chance of survival was increased by a factor of 20.

Only 5% of pilots score five victories or more. This 5% will go on to claim 40% of all aerial victories.

These figures are consistent for WW1, WW2 and the Korean conflict. This has led Stephen Bungay to write:

"The sky contains two very different groups of pilots: a small group of hunter killers and the majority who are hunted. Amongst the hunted are the experienced who know how to get away from the hunter killers, and who also hunt themselves without often killing. And there are novices who either learn survival fast or simply provide the hunter killers with targets."

In combat the pilot factor, given aircraft of at least comparable performance, is, as said above, the most important factor. This doesn't mean that performance comparisons can't be made.

All the modern training, the 'Top Gun' type of schools, are an effort to increase that 5% to a higher number, and to reduce the novices providing targets. There's not much evidence to determine whether it has or has not done that.

Cheers

Steve

Great post Steve I would question the word "decisive" surely it is any close encounter, decisive implies an outcome like a kill.

Additionally most airforce fighter units were teams, not everyone is a hunter some are there to allow the hunter to hunt without being killed, the hunters wingman. I forget the name of a German ace, I think he had over 100 kills but was most proud of never losing a wingman.

 

[Spacefire]

My concept was really just an expert pilot in each plane. It's hard to compare performance if you're considering novice pilots.

 

[pbehn]

My concept was really just an expert pilot in each plane. It's hard to compare performance if you're considering novice pilots.

I disagree with the choice of Tempest for multi role how was it at altitude? What was its range? I believe it was only cleared for ground attack in the dog days of the war. A formidable fighter in its best environment bu as an all round plane I dont think its the best, just a late model with huge power and 1944 dynamics.

 

[Messy1]

No Hellcat? Pretty effective and proven plane! Not many planes downed more enemy aircraft than the Hellcat, and had a bigger impact than the Hellcat in their respective theaters.

 

[nuuumannn]

Pick a plane from the list... Spit XIV.

 

[Spacefire]

No Hellcat? Pretty effective and proven plane! Not many planes downed more enemy aircraft than the Hellcat, and had a bigger impact than the Hellcat in their respective theaters.

I'm comparing performance. I said in the OP that I wasn't comparing the most iconic or best performing planes of certain times, but purely the BEST plane of WW2.

 

[stona]

My concept was really just an expert pilot in each plane. It's hard to compare performance if you're considering novice pilots.

I reckon you should modify that to 'average' pilot. From Bungay's definitions you might take this as one of those who has survived long enough to evade the true hunter killers whilst rarely killing themselves. For most air forces for most of the time these men were the majority.

When an air force was under pressure the relative number of novices would increase, the trick was to keep this proportion as low as possible. Park and Dowding managed this brilliantly during the BoB. Experienced hands were moved to squadrons in 11 Group, which bore the brunt of the fighting, to replace losses rather than entire squadrons being rotated in and out of that Group. This left many squadrons in other Groups barely operational (B-Class) or effectively non-operational (C-Class) but kept those at the sharp end with enough experienced pilots to prevent their destruction (A-Class).

When an air force was being defeated in an attritional battle, as the Luftwaffe in 1944, then the proportion of novices can become unacceptably high. It is noticeable how many of the Luftwaffe's Bodenplatte losses were men with a handful or less of operational missions (war flights).

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

Great post Steve I would question the word "decisive" surely it is any close encounter, decisive implies an outcome like a kill.

I'm not sure of Weiss' definition of decisive, but usually an outcome where one or other of the pilots managed to break off the combat and evade would be considered a decision, not just a kill.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

I'm comparing performance. I said in the OP that I wasn't comparing the most iconic or best performing planes of certain times, but purely the BEST plane of WW2.

Not wanting to sound like an ass, but this list is really lopsided.

The F6F should be on that list, not only because it decimated the IJN and IJA forces, but because it's performance was world class and in some cases, better than the F4U.

The Japanese had several late-war fighters that were deadly and capable of out performing Allied adversaries, comparable to what the KI-84 was capable of (i.e.: KI-100, J2M, N1K2, etc.)

The Fw190D was a potent machine but I would lean towards the Fw190A-8 which was a devastating machine even to the last days of the war - and the Ta154 was not produced in sufficient numbers to be anything more than experimental, so why is it on the list?

You have the La-7 but not the YaK-9, which had comparable performance to the P-51D, especially the later variants.

 

[Coors9]

The P-47 doesn't get enough respect for what it did . It could easily mix it up high, and was a true Beast in the ground attack roll. A true warrior of WW2.

 

[tomo pauk]

P-47M.