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

[Shortround6]

Don't mind Mr Bender on the subject of the German Navy. He seems to have an irrational hatred of the Kriegsmarine which coupled with 20/20 hindsight and the idea that leaders of the time should have been able to see into the Future by 3-6 years which tend to lead him to some rather strange conclusions.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Back in post #20 you stated "I don't know, I kind of like the idea of dozens of squadrons of Hawker Tempest IIs blasting hapless He 111s out of the sky in the BoB in the summer of 1940." After reading your posts on other topics, you appear to be very knowledgeable so I think I will take a look on what I have on the Tempest. Is the Tempest II what you exclusively choose based on the listed criteria and scenario? Why is it better than anything else?

 

[Shortround6]

If you will read the parameters and 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.

Any Air Force would have LOVED to have had planes with 1944 capabilities in 1940. Without time travel is wasn't going to happen. There are reasons that 1944 planes had the capability they did and why 1940 planes had the capabilities THEY did. Like 4 years worth of research and development in aerodynamics, different fuel, improved superchargers ( and not just adding a stage), new bearing materials, new vibration dampers, and host of other small but important detail and material changes. Not to mention changes in manufacturing techniques and testing methods.

What may be more interesting would be to compare the Promised performance of the first NA-73 in 1940 to the performance of planes actually flying in 1940 to see what kind of increase in performance there really was. Especially considering that most planes in combat in 1940 had been on the drawing boards in 1936-37 and so, in some ways were 3-4 years behind the Mustang as it was.

 

[Shortround6]

Back in post #20 you stated "I don't know, I kind of like the idea of dozens of squadrons of Hawker Tempest IIs blasting hapless He 111s out of the sky in the BoB in the summer of 1940." After reading your posts on other topics, you appear to be very knowledgeable so I think I will take a look on what I have on the Tempest. Is the Tempest II what you exclusively choose based on the listed criteria and scenario? Why is it better than anything else?

I was being a bit sarcastic.

Most any 1944-45 fighter is going to beat the crap out of 1940 bombers. Just like a 1944-45 bomber would have made swiss cheese out of any 1940 fighter defense. Imagine Hurricane MK Is trying to intercept A-26s let alone B-29s.

See the XB-28 and XB-42 for an idea of what was at least possible using piston engines and propellers by the end of the war.

North American XB-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[davparlr]

Sarcasm, David

Ohhh!

 

[Lighthunmust]

Any Air Force would have LOVED to have had planes with 1944 capabilities in 1940. Without time travel is wasn't going to happen. There are reasons that 1944 planes had the capability they did and why 1940 planes had the capabilities THEY did. Like 4 years worth of research and development in aerodynamics, different fuel, improved superchargers ( and not just adding a stage), new bearing materials, new vibration dampers, and host of other small but important detail and material changes. Not to mention changes in manufacturing techniques and testing methods.

What may be more interesting would be to compare the Promised performance of the first NA-73 in 1940 to the performance of planes actually flying in 1940 to see what kind of increase in performance there really was. Especially considering that most planes in combat in 1940 had been on the drawing boards in 1936-37 and so, in some ways were 3-4 years behind the Mustang as it was.

I must admit I a getting a little frustrated. Perhaps I haven't clearly defined what this thread is about so I will try again.

This is a not a reality situation with regard to WW2.

This is a thought experiment using all conditions of WW2 except for one.

That exception is you as the leader of your nation has the opportunity to choose one fighter aircraft type that was available in reality from 1939-45 to use in a hypothetical refighting of WW2 from start to finish. You only get one fighter aircraft type, not just one fighter aircraft. This fighter aircraft type must perform all missions that fighter aircraft during the actual WW2 were typically tasked.

The reasons for these conditions are to eliminate anyone saying "Well in 1940 I would use this, and in 1945 this" or "On the Russia front I would use this and in Burma I would use this".

The performance criteria listed and any additional relevant criteria provided by other members is to determine what fighter aircraft would be the best "jack of all trades" to use. Once anyone is sure sufficient criteria is available for analysis, a choice with explanation would be appreciated. A few members have made choices, unfortunately with little explanation using the criteria. Some of those choices appear to be clear contenders, others not. I am hoping that once we get enough choices a final comparison can be made to determine a winner based on votes from the members. Hopefully the votes will be made based on use of logical criteria.

So do you have a choice and explanation for this scenario using the listed criteria?

Obviously Hurricanes and 109Es from 1940 are not the best choice. Also obviously any aircraft available in 1945 is not an equally good choice to other aircraft available in 1945.

 

[Shortround6]

I m sorry you are getting frustrated but as far as I can tell all you are asking is what was the best all round fighter in 1945.

You can dress up the conditions all you want but 1944-45 fighters are going to have 1945 engines ( 2 to 2 1/2 times the power of a 1940 engine), 1945 fuel (allowing for higher power to weigh ratios ratios for the engines) , 1945 armament (new guns, new ammo, new gun sights and with those more powerful engines, a much greater weight of armament)*, a much more through understanding of aerodynamics ( the US alone roughly tripled the number of wind tunnels in operation from 1939 to 1945) and a much better understanding of stress analysis and structures.

So, rather obviously, only late/end war fighters are going to have the performance and armament to compete. Now we can discuss cockpit comfort, cockpit space for radar equipment, ease of landing or low speed handling or some other factors not covered by a simple speed, climb, range,armament/payload comparison but lets not kid ourselves that ANY early war aircraft has a chance of coming out on top. Mid/war planes don't have much chance either.


"Obviously Hurricanes and 109Es from 1940 are not the best choice. Also obviously any aircraft available in 1945 is not an equally good choice to other aircraft available in 1945."

* from above, as a for instance of change, in 1939-40 the American .50cal MG had a cycle rate of 600rpm unsynchronized. At some point in 1940 it was modified to increase the cycle rate to a nominal 850rpm and in the spring of 1945 several more years of work resulted in a type approved M3 version going into production with a rate of fire of 1200rpm. So a 1945 F8F Bearcat with four .50s had twice the firepower per second of a 1940 Wildcat with four .50s. This should also be kept in mind when comparing postwar aircraft to WW II aircraft when discussing armament.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I m sorry you are getting frustrated but as far as I can tell all you are asking is what was the best all round fighter in 1945.

You can dress up the conditions all you want but 1944-45 fighters are going to have 1945 engines ( 2 to 2 1/2 times the power of a 1940 engine), 1945 fuel (allowing for higher power to weigh ratios ratios for the engines) , 1945 armament (new guns, new ammo, new gun sights and with those more powerful engines, a much greater weight of armament)*, a much more through understanding of aerodynamics ( the US alone roughly tripled the number of wind tunnels in operation from 1939 to 1945) and a much better understanding of stress analysis and structures.

So, rather obviously, only late/end war fighters are going to have the performance and armament to compete. Now we can discuss cockpit comfort, cockpit space for radar equipment, ease of landing or low speed handling or some other factors not covered by a simple speed, climb, range,armament/payload comparison but lets not kid ourselves that ANY early war aircraft has a chance of coming out on top. Mid/war planes don't have much chance either.


"Obviously Hurricanes and 109Es from 1940 are not the best choice. Also obviously any aircraft available in 1945 is not an equally good choice to other aircraft available in 1945."

* from above, as a for instance of change, in 1939-40 the American .50cal MG had a cycle rate of 600rpm unsynchronized. At some point in 1940 it was modified to increase the cycle rate to a nominal 850rpm and in the spring of 1945 several more years of work resulted in a type approved M3 version going into production with a rate of fire of 1200rpm. So a 1945 F8F Bearcat with four .50s had twice the firepower per second of a 1940 Wildcat with four .50s. This should also be kept in mind when comparing postwar aircraft to WW II aircraft when discussing armament.

Nobody is kidding themselves. I and probably many others understand the factors you presented. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to write "1939-45" as it implies someone might choose other than 1945 technology. "1939-45" was written just to designate an era.

You are missing the point. You have to play the game according to the established rules. So far you are acting like a player running around shouting out the obvious rules of baseball while everyone else it trying to play football. You are obviously knowledgeable of WW2 aircraft performance, but I am beginning to think you are using this thread just to broadcast your breadth of common and esoteric knowledge rather than applying it to the stated parameters in the scenario. This saddens me because I really think you could provide something meaningful if you would just play by the rules.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't think I am being any more obtuse than you are

From your post #14

"The original posting states"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. Being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. Please re-read the original posting."

Now it has only take another 64 posts to get to the point were being in production on 9-1-39 is not only not necessary but by your admission not likely to come out on top. Of course you as much as admitted that in your post #16 but then persisted with this science-fiction twist of re-fighting WW II with one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning.

Perhaps I am shouting about "obvious rules of baseball" but I can't figure out if you are talking about American football, European (world) football (soccer), Rugby or Australian rules football. I like plain speaking, ff you want to compare the top piston engine fighters of 1945 based on a wider spread of criteria than usual that is fine. I just don't think we need to evaluate them on how well they would have shot down He 111s over England in daylight in 1940 or defended Darwin against the Japanese in 1942 or escorted transports from Sicily to Tunisia past Malta in 1941-42 to do it.

Before we spend anymore time on this are there any other rules for exclusion, since we also seem to have eliminated jets along the way. Like did a candidate just have to fly in 1945 or or just be in production or see squadron service or actually see combat (that one shortens up the year by about 4-5months).

 

[ctrian]

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.

P-51 in its ground attack version entered service in '42.As a long range high altitude escort it entered service in final months of '43 ,that's why i say '44.As for the Germans I'm not sure in what capacity it would be of use to them. As an escort for what?

 

[razor1uk]

I don't mean to sound rude, but if your going to ask peoples opinions to your criteria Lighthunmust, you shouldn't be so nay-saying of theirs, although it might be to get them to explain.
Since you have been a little roughshod, what is your pre-concieved choice of aircraft to your criteria?, listing the points you wish to make as an example to others.

 

[Shortround6]

I think I will play by a few of my own rules:

Here is a list of possible candidates.

British:
DH Hornet*
Hawker Tempest VI#^
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury
Martin Baker MB 5#
Supermarine Spitfire MK 22#
Supermarine Spiteful#

France;
None

Germany:
Do 335*
Ta 152#
Me 109K-?#@

Italy:
None

Japan:
None

Soviet Union:
LA-7
Yak-3P#
Prototypes?

US:
Grumman F7F*
Grumman F8F@
Goodyear FG-2^
NA P-51H#@
Republic P-47H
Republic P-72^
Vought F4U-4
Vought F4U-5

If we take out the fighters marked * because they are twins and and would be harder to mass produce because of their size and maintenance problems (original rules 14) Fighters marked ^ suffer same problem expensive 24/28cylinder engines that are hard to maintain.

and we take out the fighters marked # because they have liquid cooled engines and are more likely to be susceptible to battle damage (original rules 6) although a exception or two may be made?

and we take out the fighters marked @ because they have less than average armament (original rules 7) at least for this group we are left with;

British:
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury$

Soviet Union:
LA-7

US:
Republic P-47H
Vought F4U-4$
Vought F4U-5$%

Fighters marked $ are carrier based and so are out according to original rules although they can be land based. Fighter marked % doesn't fly until Dec 21 1945 so it is really here on very thin ice.
The LA-7 falls short in a number of ways and only made it this far because the 1945 version had 3 20mm B-20 cannon which kept in the running armament wise.

It would seem we are down the the Hawker Tempest II and the P-47 and I have a strange feeling the Tempest wasn't supposed to be here. I would note the the P-47s armament while above average for a WW II fighter was below average in the original 1945 group. The Centaurus engine was expensive and had some problems with development during the war but went on to post some rather amazing time between overhaul numbers in commercial service post war. The two planes owned rather different parts of the sky. Tempest II under 20,000ft and the P-47 over 20,000ft. Tempest II doesn't have turbo (and duct) maintenance issues or valves that need adjusting

Now we can fiddle a bit with cockpit size and trying to get a single seat fighter to fight at night I think we are down to two contenders.

 

[tomo pauk]

P-51 in its ground attack version entered service in '42.

Nope.
RAF's fighter squadrons used P-51/Mustang, in 1942, along with recce units.

As a long range high altitude escort it entered service in final months of '43 ,that's why i say '44.As for the Germans I'm not sure in what capacity it would be of use to them. As an escort for what?

P-51 possessed many capabilities, along with long range. Used by Luftwaffe, it would've been faster than any fighter Russians fielded by 1944. Since Eastern front was pretty large battlefield, long range comes to play, too. Germans used their bombers there up to 1945, so there is something to escort. Or, using it to achieve air superiority over Malta. Or, to provide a fighter escort from Siciliy to Tunisia. And that is before we 'Germanise' the initial P-51, by installing the DB-605 some cannons.

 

[tomo pauk]

Nobody is kidding themselves. I and probably many others understand the factors you presented. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to write "1939-45" as it implies someone might choose other than 1945 technology. "1939-45" was written just to designate an era.

You are missing the point. You have to play the game according to the established rules. So far you are acting like a player running around shouting out the obvious rules of baseball while everyone else it trying to play football. You are obviously knowledgeable of WW2 aircraft performance, but I am beginning to think you are using this thread just to broadcast your breadth of common and esoteric knowledge rather than applying it to the stated parameters in the scenario. This saddens me because I really think you could provide something meaningful if you would just play by the rules.

Our fellow member Shortround6 myself have exchanged many cyberspace barrages, yet I've never felt he was being obtuse. He made me do a lot of research, and I've learned a lot from his posts. You can try, too.

 

[Shortround6]

Our fellow member Shortround6 myself have exchanged many cyberspace barrages, yet I've never felt he was being obtuse. He made me do a lot of research, and I've learned a lot from his posts. You can try, too.

Thank you Tomo, I too have learned from our exchanges as I have done research or reread books to back up my positions. I do appreciate your enthusiasm and admire your skill in photo-shopping those drawings (how-ever you do it) even if if I don't always agree with your conclusions.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I don't undestand why someone is getting their panties in a bunch over a "What if" thread...

 

[ctrian]

Nope.
RAF's fighter squadrons used P-51/Mustang, in 1942, along with recce units.



P-51 possessed many capabilities, along with long range. Used by Luftwaffe, it would've been faster than any fighter Russians fielded by 1944. Since Eastern front was pretty large battlefield, long range comes to play, too. Germans used their bombers there up to 1945, so there is something to escort. Or, using it to achieve air superiority over Malta. Or, to provide a fighter escort from Siciliy to Tunisia. And that is before we 'Germanise' the initial P-51, by installing the DB-605 some cannons.

What engine did it use in '42 ? What capability did it have in '42? It would be faster where ? 30.000 feet? Why would the Russians fight in outer space? Bf109 did all the things you mention.You seem to be under the impression that the P-51 was some sort of 1940's F-22 superior in every way...That's not how the world works it was good in some areas not so good in others.Most of all it was the right aircraft for the USAAF.

 

[davparlr]

US:
Republic P-47H

Wouldn't the P-47H have a #?

I would have thought the P-47M/N would fit.

 

[tomo pauk]

What engine did it use in '42 ?

I take it you mean real P-51? Allison V-1710.

What capability did it have in '42?

Non-Germanised? 630 km/h @ 4km, combat range in clean condition as good as LW fighters with drop tanks. Wide undercarriage, allowing for better take off landing capabilities @ non-paved runaways.
Hypothetical/Germanised? Some 680 km/h @ 6km, superb punch, plus other stuff mentioned. Much better compressibility issues than what was fielded then there.

It would be faster where ? 30.000 feet? Why would the Russians fight in outer space?

How about reading something about P-51 in 1942/43?

Bf109 did all the things you mention.

Nope. Bf-109 was a great fighter, yet it lacked @ combat range, and speed at same HP was notably lower than what P-51 was capable. Bf-109 reached it's peak in 1941/42, but hardly developed for the next 2-3 years. Unlike P-51.

You seem to be under the impression that the P-51 was some sort of 1940's F-22 superior in every way...

I am not

That's not how the world works it was good in some areas not so good in others.

I can readily agree that some other designs were better

Most of all it was the right aircraft for the USAAF.

It surely was.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Give me a little time and I will have a reply for all of you who posted since my last post. I think you may be a little surprised by it.