Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agreed. And not bad for an aircraft that first flew in March 1936, three years before Republic Aviation existed and when the best aircraft Seversky, its pre-1939 predecessor could design and launch was the P-35. I'd not want to take the latter up against any Mk of Spitfire.The top fighter of the entire war was the Spitfire. The p47 was an excellent fighter, especially after mid 1943. It performed better in some roles than the Spitfire but it was more expensive, huge fuel consumption, and in the most crucial role of the air superiority, the Spitfire was always superior. A spitfire ix would outfly a p47c, a spit xiv would outfly a P47d-25,
a spit 21 would outfly p47N. Except in extreme altitudes
Low to medium altitude yes but only until the MkIX LF appeared.Eric Brown rated the FW-190 as the best all round fighter of the war so you could be on to something there.
Yes. I think Brown meant in terms of versatility - ground attack etc.Low to medium altitude yes but only until the MkIX LF appeared.
That kind of depends on where you need the air superiority?in the most crucial role of the air superiority, the Spitfire was always superior.
And at what ranges?A spitfire ix would outfly a p47c, a spit xiv would outfly a P47d-25,
a spit 21 would outfly p47N. Except in extreme altitudes
The Spitfire was fast and it turned well. the 1930s version had a bit of a problem with climb.And not bad for an aircraft that first flew in March 1936, three years before Republic Aviation existed and when the best aircraft Seversky, its pre-1939 predecessor could design and launch was the P-35. I'd not want to take the latter up against any Mk of Spitfire.
This is (and the rest of the post) is quite right. If we judge the "best" fighter as an air superiority fighter at a limited distance from it's own airfield then it is very hard to top the Spitfire.It would be nice were there to be an agreed definition of the 'greatest' 'best' etc words. For example one could choose some barely in service before the end of the war aeroplane just for performance or the Hawker Hurricane for winning the Battle of Britain which kept the Commonwealth in the war and was the base for all further events.
This is (and the rest of the post) is quite right. If we judge the "best" fighter as an air superiority fighter at a limited distance from it's own airfield then it is very hard to top the Spitfire.
Once we ask other things from it, like somewhat longer range, or ground attack things get a lot fuzzier.
I think it has been well established that WWII started September 1939, when it became a true global conflict. And it ended September 1945, with the paper scribbling on that big metal boat in Tokyo bay.Start date of WWII? July 1937, September 1939, June 1941, December 1941, other?
Spitfire was in production and service for that entire timeframeCriteria for inclusion in WWII. On drawing board? Prototype flown? Production started? At least X combat sorties? Other minimum length of service?
Spitfire did bothCarrier or land based?
Spitfire excelled at short ranges as a combat aircraft, and was capable of long ranges with modification, or as a recce bird.Short, medium, long or very long range?
Spitfire was capable across the board. Right at sea level with LF models, or shooting down Ju 86's at 49000 ft.Low, medium, high or very high altitude?
Not sure about anti-shipping, but otherwise, Spitfire was involved in the restInterception, escort, patrol, ground attack, anti shipping, reconnaissance?
Spitfires destroyed basically every type of aircraft deployed by the AxisType of enemy aircraft expected, fighter/bomber and their characteristics?
That is true but a 1940 fighter needed changes to remain in the fight. The Hawk 75 (P-36) was the best the French had in the spring of 1940 and held it's own or better. But Hawk 75s in 1942/43 would have been a disaster.Agree, SR6. We also need to bound the timeframe. An amazing fighter that becomes available in 1943 doesn't do you a lick of good in 1942.
Given the rate of fighter development and the manner in which roles evolved from 1936-1945, I still find it pretty remarkable that the Spit was still in the fight. The Mustang was absolutely outstanding. I love the Jug just because it looks fantastic. The Hellcat and Corsair were incredibly capable airframes....but none of them were present in 1940 when the entire world needed the Hurricane and the Spitfire to do what they did.
And like I have said, there were no LF P-47s. Or HF P-47s.Spitfire was capable across the board. Right at sea level with LF models, or shooting down Ju 86's at 49000 ft.
Spitfire PR Mk.I was flying over Berlin six months before the first P-47 left the factory floorThe Spitfire was the better fighter over London. The P-47 was the better fighter over Berlin.
How many bombers was it escorting?
Didn't need to escort bombers. They were all operating at night.
Yes. I think Brown meant in terms of versatility - ground attack etc.
I have lost count of the number of pilots from all sides who rated the Spitfire as far and away the best interceptor of the war.
My dander is elevating by the second!
Spitfire PR Mk.I was flying over Berlin six months before the first P-47 left the factory floor
That would be a wrecce mission.... and a PR plane isn't a fighter, it's recce. To my knowledge, the only pics a Jug took were through gun-cameras.
"The Spitfire doesnt have the range of the Mustang", so what we have Mustangs.The Spitfire was the better fighter over London. The P-47 was the better fighter over Berlin.
I read that somewhere on the Forum.
I learned the "which was better" questions really are just soap boxes for proving a personal favorite best.
Unless we're talking about the B-17.