What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter

Lighthunmust · May 19, 2011

davebender said:
I disagree.

Weapon cost is a reflection of material requirements and labor requirements. Low cost means you use less of these scarce resources.

For both the Allies and the Axis material and labor requirements for production of aircraft was not the primary problem. The Germans had far more Fighters than pilots and fuel to enable their use. The same is true of the Japanese. If given a choice do you think Goering, if he knew what we know today, would have preferred 30K Bf-109s or 20K P-47s? Remember you are going to lose 10K of those Bf-109s to landing gear induced accidents. With the expensive P-47 he would have better pilot protection meaning more returning to battle, much easier armament logistics, and greater ability to evade P-51s and destroy bombers.

Readie said:
Lighthunmust said:

Really, the Hurricane? Of the criteria listed it is equal or superior to a Spitfire, Mustang, FW190, Lagg, Macchi, etc., etc. Why?

1. It must be possible to produce in sufficient numbers. It was

2. Its flight characteristics must be benevolent enough to allow inexperienced pilots to gain experience without frequently making fatal mistakes. It was

3. Its flight characteristics must be benevolent enough to allow experienced pilots who are disabled from fatigue or wounds to fly without making fatal mistakes. It was

4. It must have average or better than average ease of maintenance. It was

5. It must have average or better than average comfort to reduce pilot fatigue. It was

6. It must have average or better than average ability to continue to fight and fly after receiving battle damage. It was equal to the fighters of its time.

7. It must have average or better than average primary armament. 8x.303

8. It must have average or better than average ability to be modified to use secondary armaments.It was

9. It must have average or better than average ability to be modified to fight at night.It was

10. It must have the speed, maneuverability, armament, and resistance to catastrophic damage to allow a pilot with skill equal to his opponents to have an equal or superior chance to survive in a one on one fight by victory or retreat. I believe it was.

Not a quick choice.
To answer your thread the Hurricane ticks all your boxes for the early part of WW2. Obviously it won't compare to much later fighters. But, as power and weight increased so the ease of flying decreased. There is probabily an exponential graph to show this.
Cheers
John

Click to expand...

For its time, summer 1940, yes. But 8 .303s were never a good idea if you had even as few as 3 .50s. The weight of fire per second for 8 .303s is about the same as 2 .50s. Only bad decisions prevented Hurricanes and Spitfires from being far better at destroying the Luftwaffe during the summer of 1940. I don't think many pilots would chose a Hurricane for fighting over Germany in 1943-45.

tomo pauk · May 19, 2011

Could it really be so that Tempest II performed better than Hurricane? I find it hard to swallow.

davparlr · May 19, 2011

tomo pauk said:
Could it really be so that Tempest II performed better than Hurricane? I find it hard to swallow.

I'm a bit confused by this comment. The Tempest II was one of the most powerful and best raw performance aircraft of WWII with a top speed at SL of 416 mph and 4700 ft/min climb. It was clearly superior to the Tempest V which was a pretty good performer itself.

Maybe you were thinking of the Tempest I, or assumed the Tempest II was something less than the Tempest V, that could be confusing?

Shortround6 · May 19, 2011

I think you missed the sarcasm

Readie · May 19, 2011

Please read my thread chaps..I offer the Hurricane as an early WW2 fighter not a competitor to the Tempest.
Cheers
John

Lighthunmust · May 19, 2011

Readie said:
Please read my thread chaps..I offer the Hurricane as an early WW2 fighter not a competitor to the Tempest.
Cheers
John

Please re-read my original post that started this thread. The topic is not about the best early WW2 fighter. The topic is about hypothetically re-fighting WW2 with the best fighter available at anytime during 1939-45. Clearly the Hurricane is not that fighter! The Hurricane has many fine attributes that some fighters with higher top speed, faster climb, higher speed at altitude, and longer range may not have had, but it also has a top speed, time to climb, speed at altitude, and range that are so outclassed that it is not a contender many would chose.

GrauGeist · May 19, 2011

If I had to choose a fighter that falls along the proposed criteria, I'd have to go with a machine along the lines of the P-47.

While it may not have been one of the least expensive to manufacture, it more than delivered on it's ability to adapt to multi-role requirements giving you more bang for your buck.

It was a solid aircraft to fly, it protected it's pilot well and put serious hurt on any enemy aircraft that had the misfortune to find itself in the it's gunsights. It was well known to absorb battle damage and remain flyable, and there were plenty of instances where the pilot was seriously injured and yet managed to get back to England safely.

Another virtue about the P-47, was that it remained upgradable through the war's end as technology advanced keeping it at the leading edge of the fight.

Lighthunmust · May 20, 2011

GrauGeist said:
If I had to choose a fighter that falls along the proposed criteria, I'd have to go with a machine along the lines of the P-47.

While it may not have been one of the least expensive to manufacture, it more than delivered on it's ability to adapt to multi-role requirements giving you more bang for your buck.

It was a solid aircraft to fly, it protected it's pilot well and put serious hurt on any enemy aircraft that had the misfortune to find itself in the it's gunsights. It was well known to absorb battle damage and remain flyable, and there were plenty of instances where the pilot was seriously injured and yet managed to get back to England safely.

Another virtue about the P-47, was that it remained upgradable through the war's end as technology advanced keeping it at the leading edge of the fight.

It certainly did remain upgradable. If I am not mistaken the heavier P-47N had a faster rate of roll than the lighter P-47C/Ds, in addition to increased range and speed. Of course there was never the chance to really find out what the ultimate P-47 upgrade would have done, that being the XP-72. The XP-72 was to the P-47 what the P-51H was to the P-51D.

Freebird · May 20, 2011

Lighthunmust said:
Please re-read my original post that started this thread. The topic is not about the best early WW2 fighter. The topic is about hypothetically re-fighting WW2 with the best fighter available at anytime during 1939-45.

Kind of a strange hypothesis. Why stop at 1945? Why not fight WWII with Phantoms or Fulcrums?

I would suppose that the best WWII fighter for multi-purpose use would be the late model Corsair, range, speed, payload, armament.
(It was a land based fighter before it was a carrier one)

The idea does make for a strange WWII, using advanced aircraft in '39 - '40.

What would your opponent be using?

Corsairs vs Me109Es?

ctrian · May 20, 2011

1. Performance (speed ,roll rate,acceleration ,climb rate etc)
2. Cost
3. Durability
4. Stability
5. Firepower
6. Visibility from cockpit
7. Range
8. Serviceability
9. Radio
10. Gunsight
11. Automated controls
12. Etc etc etc

Shortround6 · May 20, 2011

freebird said:
Kind of a strange hypothesis. Why stop at 1945? Why not fight WWII with Phantoms or Fulcrums?

Corsairs vs Me109Es?

Phantoms all the way:
File:FH-1 CVB-42 landing NAN9 46.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, the Prototype flew in Jan 1945.

Readie · May 20, 2011

Lighthunmust said:
Please re-read my original post that started this thread. The topic is not about the best early WW2 fighter. The topic is about hypothetically re-fighting WW2 with the best fighter available at anytime during 1939-45. Clearly the Hurricane is not that fighter! The Hurricane has many fine attributes that some fighters with higher top speed, faster climb, higher speed at altitude, and longer range may not have had, but it also has a top speed, time to climb, speed at altitude, and range that are so outclassed that it is not a contender many would chose.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

tomo pauk · May 20, 2011

davparlr said:
I'm a bit confused by this comment. The Tempest II was one of the most powerful and best raw performance aircraft of WWII with a top speed at SL of 416 mph and 4700 ft/min climb. It was clearly superior to the Tempest V which was a pretty good performer itself.

Maybe you were thinking of the Tempest I, or assumed the Tempest II was something less than the Tempest V, that could be confusing?

Sarcasm, David

davebender · May 20, 2011

Is the airframe large enough to a accomodate new engines, weapons and larger fuel tanks? If not then you must immediately begin design of a follow-on aircraft.

Lighthunmust · May 20, 2011

freebird said:
Kind of a strange hypothesis. Why stop at 1945? Why not fight WWII with Phantoms or Fulcrums?

I would suppose that the best WWII fighter for multi-purpose use would be the late model Corsair, range, speed, payload, armament.
(It was a land based fighter before it was a carrier one)

The idea does make for a strange WWII, using advanced aircraft in '39 - '40.

What would your opponent be using?

Corsairs vs Me109Es?

If you find this thread "strange" and necessary to mock, please don't participate. "Why stop at 1945". Why not? Other than minor improvements the development of piston fighters was at an end. You "suppose that the best WWII fighter for multi-purpose use would be the late model Corsair",I suppose you have a equal chance of being wrong. What "range, speed, payload, armament" do you really think was superior to other choices? I can certainly think of some of the original stated criteria where it was inferior. The did not call it the ensign eliminator without reason and even with the later stall tab it was still far more likely to kill you for a mistake than many other aircraft. There is no need to know what your opponent is using since he has exactly the same choice of piston aircraft as you. No jet fighters would be available in sufficient quantity to make a difference. "Corsairs vs Me109Es?" Corsair maybe. Me109E = improved flight performance with all the unsatisfactory issues that get you killed uncorrected.

davebender said:
Is the airframe large enough to a accomodate new engines, weapons and larger fuel tanks? If not then you must immediately begin design of a follow-on aircraft.

Excellent addition to the criteria. Some of the aircraft available definitely had little or marginal ability to upgrade in all areas of the criteria originally listed.

Readie said:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Yes they are, and I respect your right to have and express yours. I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

ctrian said:
1. Performance (speed ,roll rate,acceleration ,climb rate etc)
2. Cost
3. Durability
4. Stability
5. Firepower
6. Visibility from cockpit
7. Range
8. Serviceability
9. Radio
10. Gunsight
11. Automated controls
12. Etc etc etc

Many of these are excellent things to consider and would be details contained in the original criteria. Visibility from the cockpit is often under valued, gunsight certainly makes a huge difference (compare to shooting a firearm with iron sights to one with a modern red dot sight), automated controls is a plus in reducing pilot fatigue, maneuvering, pilot safety.

tomo pauk · May 20, 2011

In a more affirmative note: we have a thread ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-piston-engined-fighter-ever-7415.html )dealing with best piston engined fighter plane, perhaps a fresh thread covering that could be OK.

renrich · May 20, 2011

Criticism of the fight characteristics of the Corsair ( Ensign Eliminator, "It could get you killed") needs to be tempered substantially by the knowledge that those undesirable characteristics were identified in the context of the very demanding environment of carrier operations. Operating the Corsair as a landbased plane was a horse of a different color. Flying from land bases it was very little, if not no more dangerous than most other high performance WW2 fighters. If one reads up on the FW190 it is remarkable how similar it's stall characteristics were to the Corsair. The P40 was the AAF ground looping champion perhaps only exceeded in that category by the F4F and the ME109 was said to have destroyed itself in landing accidents quite frequently. The P38 for a low time pilot was a handful and so on. The fact is that few if any WW2 fighters were especially easy to operate.

davebender · May 20, 2011

Was there much difference before the introduction of gyro stabilized gunsights during 1945?

Aircraft weapons are a critical component. However you are stuck with whatever your nation has adopted as standard. For the USA that means .50cal MGs right up to 1950. Most other nations had decent aircraft cannon in service by 1941.

Lighthunmust · May 20, 2011

tomo pauk said:
In a more affirmative note: we have a thread ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-piston-engined-fighter-ever-7415.html )dealing with best piston engined fighter plane, perhaps a fresh thread covering that could be OK.

That thread has a limited list of aircraft and no criteria to use for supporting any choice. I am trying to get some agreed upon way of analysis to support choices. Already in this thread members have presented information that has me rethinking some of my assumptions and opinions. That is why I started it. We all have our emotional favorites, I like to understand why they are worthy of being our emotional favorites. I have a real soft spot for the P-40 (and others) but I don't think it is the best choice based on the criteria I listed. Is that "affirmative"?

ctrian · May 20, 2011

Lighthunmust said:
Many of these are excellent things to consider and would be details contained in the original criteria. Visibility from the cockpit is often under valued, gunsight certainly makes a huge difference (compare to shooting a firearm with iron sights to one with a modern red dot sight), automated controls is a plus in reducing pilot fatigue, maneuvering, pilot safety.

Yep and don't forget cost and serviceability. For example the Bf-109 was not only a great little aircraft but it was very cheap to produce.If an airforce has equipment that require few hours in the hangar they can fly more sorties than the enemy and defeat him even when numerically outnumbered
!

What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

Chief Master Sergeant

Banned

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Banned

Master Sergeant

Banned

Major General

Chief Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

1st Lieutenant

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Chief Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Banned

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads