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

[Lighthunmust]

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.

None were especially easy to operate, but some were significantly easier than others. Even when operating on land the Corsair was still more of a handful than others. Anyone think the improved Corsair had better landing characteristics than for example a Spitfire or Thunderbolt? Interesting you mentioned the P-40 as it has a similar landing gear set-up, and originally a similar problem with nasty stall characteristics until improved.

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
!

I have already expressed my opinion that cost is a minor consideration. As long as materials are available the difference in cost between the most expensive and least expensive fighters is not prohibitively great. None of the combatants ran out of aircraft, they ran out of pilots and fuel. The Bf-109 has so many other limiting factors based on the listed criteria (numbers 2,3,5,6,8,9) that I do not think it the best choice. If I were defending the air over my homeland I would want an aircraft that had great pilot and aircraft survival characteristics when damaged or accidently crashed (109 not noted for either), able to stay in the air for long patrols( 109 rather short ranged), and easy armament logistics (for the 109 working on the guns and engine at the same time was problematic and had more than one caliber of ammunition to supply). I don't think the 109 was very good in any of these things.

 

[renrich]

Almost all of the early models of the fighters had some undesirable flight characteristics and as some models evolved they were not as docile as the early models. I guess the P40 and Corsair landing gear were similar. They both had wheels and struts. From "Eighty Knots to Mach Two," by Richard Linnekin, a career Navy pilot. This was in the 1945-50 time frame and he was learning to operate the F4U4.

"The Corsair was a stable airplane with reasonable, not objectionable, control forces. It had a comforting, solid feel in cruise configuration, yet maneuver response was quick and relatively easy. It was not as quick as the Bearcat, but in some ways it was more controllable. My subjective impression is of better "control harmony" in the Corsair than in either of the Grummans. That expression refers to a desirable state in which stability and control responses are similar about all three axes."

"THe F4U was a fine acrobatic airplane." "I was pleased to discover that stalls, especially what would now be called approach to landing stalls, were straightforward-mostly that means no left wing drop-with insufficient warning, mushy control response and the need for lots of back stick." "When it came time to land the "Ensign Eliminator" my apprehension was gone. Landing the Corsair was a piece of cake. The airplane's attitude on the ground with that raised tail wheel took a little getting used to but the visibility on roll out was good for a tail wheel airplane. I shot half a dozen or so touch and go landings followed by a final. By the end of the flight I didn't feel the airplane's master but I was comfortable in it. Even better than comfortable, I liked it."

That was his first flight and later in the book he explains why he became a better gunner in the Corsair than with either the Hellcat or Bearcat. Does not sound like the later Corsair was a beast at all!

 

[ctrian]

None were especially easy to operate, but some were significantly easier than others. Even when operating on land the Corsair was still more of a handful than others. Anyone think the improved Corsair had better landing characteristics than for example a Spitfire or Thunderbolt? Interesting you mentioned the P-40 as it has a similar landing gear set-up, and originally a similar problem with nasty stall characteristics until improved.


I have already expressed my opinion that cost is a minor consideration. As long as materials are available the difference in cost between the most expensive and least expensive fighters is not prohibitively great. None of the combatants ran out of aircraft, they ran out of pilots and fuel. The Bf-109 has so many other limiting factors based on the listed criteria (numbers 2,3,5,6,8,9) that I do not think it the best choice. If I were defending the air over my homeland I would want an aircraft that had great pilot and aircraft survival characteristics when damaged or accidently crashed (109 not noted for either), able to stay in the air for long patrols( 109 rather short ranged), and easy armament logistics (for the 109 working on the guns and engine at the same time was problematic and had more than one caliber of ammunition to supply). I don't think the 109 was very good in any of these things.

Cost in ww2 would be a measure of the materials and manpower used plus capital equipment required .If you compare different aircraft costs in man-hours you'll see that there were significant differences. For example the Spitfire took twice the man-hours compared to the Bf109 .Just because a country doesn't run out of aircraft doesn't mean that they are cheap it could mean that the country is spending huge sums of money and lots of manpower on the air industry.Men and materials that will not be allocated to other sectors of course.As for your comments on the Bf109 I think you're wrong on most of them.Take a look at the discussions here and Kurfurt's site on the Bf109,he has original documents.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Cost in ww2 would be a measure of the materials and manpower used plus capital equipment required .If you compare different aircraft costs in man-hours you'll see that there were significant differences. For example the Spitfire took twice the man-hours compared to the Bf109 .Just because a country doesn't run out of aircraft doesn't mean that they are cheap it could mean that the country is spending huge sums of money and lots of manpower on the air industry.Men and materials that will not be allocated to other sectors of course.As for your comments on the Bf109 I think you're wrong on most of them.Take a look at the discussions here and Kurfurt's site on the Bf109,he has original documents.

Mismanagement of materials, manpower, capital equipment is more the problem than materials, manpower, and capital equipment. When the survival of the nation is at stake you sacrifice to the most important weapon systems. Why were so many Spitfires made even if as you say they took twice the man-hours? One reason is that the U.K. made full commitment to a war economy much sooner than the Germans once the war began. Until late in war a much larger percentage of the German economy was devoted to civilian needs. What would have benefited the Germans more, two more divisions of Tiger tanks and toasters or the equivalent in fighters flown by experienced pilots on June 6, 1944? If more German pilots and aircraft had survived by D-Day because they were flying aircraft with the better aircraft and pilot survival characteristics, range, and easier armament logistics of something similar to a P-47, the beaches on June 6, 1944 may have been untenable for the allies. I am really of the opinion that the Luftwaffe did as well as it did in spite of the Bf109 and not because of it. That being said I an open minded to reasoned argument and analysis. Could you please provide a link to "Kurfurt's site" and any threads you believe support your argument. Thank you.

 

[ctrian]

Mismanagement of materials, manpower, capital equipment is more the problem than materials, manpower, and capital equipment..... That being said I an open minded to reasoned argument and analysis. Could you please provide a link to "Kurfurt's site" and any threads you believe support your argument. Thank you.

The idea that the German war economy was mismanaged, on peace footing etc was always ridiculous and has been thoroughly debunked by Tooze,''Wages of Destruction'' and Abelshauser in ''The Economics of World War II'' chapter 4.
Kurfurst's site: Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance
Regarding the threads you'll have to use the search function there are several that deal with Bf109 performance ,combat record , losses ,comparison with allied fighters etc

 

[Lighthunmust]

The idea that the German war economy was mismanaged, on peace footing etc was always ridiculous and has been thoroughly debunked by Tooze,''Wages of Destruction'' and Abelshauser in ''The Economics of World War II'' chapter 4.
Kurfurst's site: Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance
Regarding the threads you'll have to use the search function there are several that deal with Bf109 performance ,combat record , losses ,comparison with allied fighters etc

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I am not familiar with the sources you site on the German economy. The preponderance of sources I have been exposed to agree with me. Just the aspect of mismanagement regarding wasted manpower and resources on every screwball idea for wonder weapons, unrealistic perfection of design, and choosing producers who are political favorites is orders of magnitude greater than what went on with the Allies. With regard to the comparison and timing of commitment to a full war economy, I suggest you read "Why the Allies Won" by Richard Overy published by W.W. Norton Co. 1996.

First off if the Mods feel the way I am presenting this topic is not sufficiently new in approach I will understand it being closed.

This is purely a hypothetical situation in that what is being chosen would be what you would choose if you had to begin fighting WW2 again on September 1, 1939 with any of the aircraft available at any time during 1939-45. The Fighter you choose would be the one to arm your air force if you could choose only one aircraft type and it must be adequate for all missions and superior in some missions.

Listed below in no particular order of priority are my suggestions for what must be considered in determining the best piston engined land based fighter aircraft for WW2. Please feel free to post any additional criteria you believe is required. When sufficient criteria is agreed upon I would like members to determine the aircraft they believe to be the best match.

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

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

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.

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

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

6. It must have average or better than average ability to continue to fight and fly after receiving battle damage.

7. It must have average or better than average primary armament.

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

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

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.

Dear fellow members of the forum: I would really like to get back to the original purpose of this thread: determining the criteria required to make the choice for the scenario proposed. Some of you have contributed great new criteria or more detail to what was listed. Some of you have certainly made me reconsider my assumptions and opinions. Some have you provided great sources for information. Thank you. I still would like to get more criteria and if you are ready to state your choice of fighter please give detailed reasons for it. Thanks for participating.

 

[davebender]

There were no Panzer divisions equipped primarily with Tiger tanks. They were produced in limited numbers and assigned to heavy panzer battalions for use against fortifications. Similiar in concept to the Soviet KV series and the "Jumbo" version of the American Sherman tank.

Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Lighthunmust]

There were no Panzer divisions equipped primarily with Tiger tanks. They were produced in limited numbers and assigned to heavy panzer battalions for use against fortifications. Similiar in concept to the Soviet KV series and the "Jumbo" version of the American Sherman tank.

Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Perhaps I should not have said Tiger. It is not that I thought there were divisions exclusively equipped with Tigers. What I was trying to convey is that resources were wasted on things like Tiger tanks that could have been used for more superior effective aircraft. It was certainly easier to build a superior fighter (FW190D) than a superior ineffective tank (Tiger) The concept of the Tiger was terribly flawed for the conditions and technology of the war and should have been realized before production ever started. Hitler's influence is greatly responsible for this mistake. Tiger tanks however were not just assigned for use against fortifications as a great many Canadian and American tankers discovered. That being said there is no bear to big that too many hounds are not the death of it.

 

[davebender]

I'll grant you that the Tiger tank wasn't cost efficient. However it was very effective in combat.

As opposed to Bismarck class battleships and Hipper class heavy cruisers which were horribly expensive while contributing practically nothing to the German war effort.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I'll grant you that the Tiger tank wasn't cost efficient. However it was very effective in combat.

As opposed to Bismarck class battleships and Hipper class heavy cruisers which were horribly expensive while contributing practically nothing to the German war effort.

Sorry Dave I cannot agree it was effective in combat. It was too big and heavy for the roads and bridges it needed to cross and the roads in urban areas. It used more fuel than the better Panther at a time when fuel was critically short, its mechanical reliability was substandard, its turret traverse was comparably slow, and once to many hounds (five Shermans) surrounded it, destruction of the bear(Tiger)was only 2 or 3 dead Shermans away. The Germans would have been far better off with 1.3 extra Panthers for every Tiger they wasted time and material on.

In case I missed it Dave, what additional criteria do you have to contribute and do you have a choice with details for making it?

 

[BiffF15]

Hello gents, great thread! At first blush I will throw the F4U Corsair into the mix, however I have more questions to follow about the criteria.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Hello gents, great thread! At first blush I will throw the F4U Corsair into the mix, however I have more questions to follow about the criteria.

From what I have been reading many would agree with you that the F4U is definitely a serious contender! Based on the listed criteria why do you think the F4U is the best choice?

 

[ctrian]

@ Lighthunmust

Throw away Overy's book it's garbage.Buy ''Wages of Destruction'' and ''Brute Force'' by John Ellis.You can thank me later...

 

[Lighthunmust]

@ Lighthunmust

Throw away Overy's book it's garbage.Buy ''Wages of Destruction'' and ''Brute Force'' by John Ellis.You can thank me later...

Really garbage? That seems to be a minority opinion from what my search of reviews indicates. I also found that Ellis, Tooze, and Abelhauser are not without controversy. Overy is not my only source of information. Even if the allies and axis had exactly the same resources, the superior systems of management and decision methods would have ensured victory. That is about as sure as the sun rising in the east. I find it laughable to assert the German political and industrial leadership did not enormously hinder themselves with arrogance of individually thinking they were experts on all aspects war fighting, the delusion of ethnic superiority, and individual greed to an extent far greater than the allies. All of this resulted in being too slow and disorganized to realize the magnitude of the situation and have a maximum effort in time.

WHAT NEW CRITERIA DO YOU HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE. WHAT FIGHTER IS YOUR CHOICE AND HOW IS IT SUPERIOR WHEN USING THE LISTED CRITERIA?

 

[ctrian]

Yes it IS really that bad i've read it and EVERY chapter is wrong.Do yourself a favour and buy the books i mentioned.If you're looking for cool aircraft you can't go wrong with the Bf109 really cheap to build,easy to operate, stellar combat record and can fly all day with little maintenace.Of course it is a point interceptor so you can't compare it with aircraft built for long range missions.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Yes it IS really that bad i've read it and EVERY chapter is wrong.Do yourself a favour and buy the books i mentioned.If you're looking for cool aircraft you can't go wrong with the Bf109 really cheap to build,easy to operate, stellar combat record and can fly all day with little maintenace.Of course it is a point interceptor so you can't compare it with aircraft built for long range missions.

If I come across the books you recommend I will certainly consider reading them, until then the preponderance of sources I have seen support my opinion.

The problem is that even if the Bf109 is everything you say that disqualifies it from being the best choice because of the range issue you mention. I also think its weapons load and diversity capability, and aircraft and pilot survivability, to name a few criteria, are deficient. Your post has certainly convinced me that Bf109 fandom is well populated. Much of the 109s length of service, production numbers, and combat record have nothing to do with its capabilities being superior to opponents. Do you think if Galland or Hartmann had equal hours of training in a German made P-51 they would have chosen the 109? I don't.

 

[ctrian]

Tooze's book is already cheap you can buy it.As for the Bf u have to be specific about what you want the aircraft to do.The p51 is a '44 plane and had other problems(stability and firepower).No aircraft can do everything you need ,each airforce prioritized different things.For example i don't think the P51 would be useful for the Germans

 

[Readie]

Bismarck class battleships and Hipper class heavy cruisers which were horribly expensive while contributing practically nothing to the German war effort.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tooze's book is already cheap you can buy it.As for the Bf u have to be specific about what you want the aircraft to do.The p51 is a '44 plane and had other problems(stability and firepower).No aircraft can do everything you need ,each airforce prioritized different things.For example i don't think the P51 would be useful for the Germans

P-51 entered service in 1942; the firepower, while not comparable with 4-cannon Typhoons Hurricanes, was sufficient for tasks of RAF USAAC.
The stability problems were encountered only with rear fuel tank having more than 50% of contents.
The Germans would've loved it, no doubt about that.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Tooze's book is already cheap you can buy it.As for the Bf u have to be specific about what you want the aircraft to do.The p51 is a '44 plane and had other problems(stability and firepower).No aircraft can do everything you need ,each airforce prioritized different things.For example i don't think the P51 would be useful for the Germans

If you will read the parameters of the thread listed in the first posting you will see that " The P-51 is a '44 plane" does not matter. The point of the thread is determining the criteria for and then making a choice of the best fighter for use under all conditions. Obviously not single aircraft will excel in are areas. The point is to establish what must be considered in making the best compromise of capabilities before making a choice from what was available between 1939-45. Please read the original thread if you need further clarification.

I think the Germans would have loved to have had the P-51 in May 1940. It was exactly what they needed for escort during BOB. During the defense of the Reich P-51s would have been faster and easier to rearm, needed less time refueling between multiple short intercept missions, and would have the range to initiate intercept over the Channel and North Sea from bases deep in Germany far from the harassment of Rodeos.