What fighter of 1939-40 could compete with fighters of 1944-45?

[Vincenzo]

GrauGeist idk if JoeB (nickname in this forum) is Joe Baugher
however this was the post
"That's interesting they apparently use "Bloody Shambles" by Shores to check those claims v Japanese accounts. Usually P-26's are credited with Zeroes Dec 12 (didn't happen per Japanese accounts) and 23rd. Problem is, the latter incident happens to be an apparent error in "Shambles". Shores matches that Filipino claim which was apparently on the 23rd, with a Japanese loss on the 24th (PO1c T. Kikuchi of the Tainan Air Group, KIA, per other sources, no loss on the 23rd) saying there was no known American claim otherwise. But there was: US P35's engaged Zeroes the 24th same place the Japanese said the loss occurred, claiming one or two, apparently the victors over Kikuchi, and the only documented case where a *P-35* ever downed a Zero. Apparently no Zeroes were downed by P-26's."

 

[Shortround6]

What's the worst single seat, single engined piston-powered fighter that entered service in 1944/45?

The CAC Boomerang was produced until Feb 1945. Would a Spitfire Mk.II be entirely outclassed?

Please a bit more consistent with your posts.

entered service in 1944/45

Boomerang was produced until Feb 1945

entered service and produced are not the same thing. The Boomerang entered service (in a combat squadron, not training) in April/May of 1943.

And yes, the Boomerang was pretty much outclassed as an air to air fighter in 1943. The Only thing keeping the Spitfire MK II in contention is the nearly inexplicable Japanese decision to keep build Ki 43s long after they should have stopped. But what happens when your Spitfire IIs run into Ki 84s?
The Australians were smart enough to transfer the Boomerangs to army cooperation duties, target spotting/marking strafing and not use them for interceptores in 1944/45.

 

[Hairog]

The P-38 could and did. Of course you had the upgraded models with all the fixings of the P-38L The L could and did take on all comers with the exception of the Me 262, YP-80 and Meteor. It served in every theater in every year that the US was at war and first flew in January of 1939 breaking a speed record for the fastest flight between California and New York but crashed due to carburetor icing near the end of the flight.
It was in production for the whole length of the war for the US. The P-38L was very competitive and much in demand in 1945. Over 1800 were ordered and cancelled when the war ended.

 

[GrauGeist]

Turns out that the Boomerang was highly effective at ground attack - an attribute that was in high demand in the latter half of the Pacific war.

 

[Timppa]

The best fighter in service in 1940 was the Bf 109 F-1.
Outclassed by the best fighters of 1944, but IMO not hopelessly inferior.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The best fighter in service in 1940 was the Bf 109 F-1.
Outclassed by the best fighters of 1944, but IMO not hopelessly inferior.
View attachment 588404

These chaps alongside in October 1940 have no idea that by October 1944 they'd be fighting and running for their lives. All must have seemed peachy in October 1940.

 

[RpR]

In Hun in Sun attacks, age of aircraft means nothing, firepower of aircraft is everything.
Many early aircraft were terribly under armed.

In a dog fight , the agility of the aircraft and skill of pilot determines who goes home.
Not age of aircraft.

When Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was attacked by 7 zeros flying a Douglas Dauntless, he shot down three of them in a slow horribly under armed aircraft, and flew back to his carrier.

 

[Csch605]

Could the best fighters of 1939-40 compete with the fighters of 1944-45?

For example, Spitfire Mk.II vs. Nakajima Ki-84?

A Spitfire could compete especially if the pilot had 5 years in the seat.

 

[SaparotRob]

It might be the brain damage talking but I just remembered reading about a Japanese pilot who in one fight, took on multiple American fighters successfully with an aging Zero. The source was either "Samaurai" by Saburo Sakai or "Zero" by Masatake Okumiya.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

In Hun in Sun attacks, age of aircraft means nothing, firepower of aircraft is everything.
Many early aircraft were terribly under armed.

In a dog fight , the agility of the aircraft and skill of pilot determines who goes home.
Not age of aircraft.

When Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was attacked by 7 zeros flying a Douglas Dauntless, he shot down three of them in a slow horribly under armed aircraft, and flew back to his carrier.

I find that very hard to believe

 

[Shortround6]

See Dragondogs post.

What one exceptional pilot could do with an old or inappropriate airplane is not the point.

What several dozen (Group or wing) average (or random distribution ) pilots could do against a similar number of enemy pilots using much newer aircraft is.

My favorite underdog aircraft story is the Avro Anson that claimed 3 Bf 109s in one mission over the channel in 1940.
No fighter squadron swapped it's Hurricanes for Ansons afterward. Nobody even suggested using Ansons as fighters or bomber interceptors.

 

[SaparotRob]

See Dragondogs post.

What one exceptional pilot could do with an old or inappropriate airplane is not the point.

What several dozen (Group or wing) average (or random distribution ) pilots could do against a similar number of enemy pilots using much newer aircraft is.

My favorite underdog aircraft story is the Avro Anson that claimed 3 Bf 109s in one mission over the channel in 1940.
No fighter squadron swapped it's Hurricanes for Ansons afterward. Nobody even suggested using Ansons as fighters or bomber interceptors.

I'd like to hear more about that Anson!

 

[Shortround6]

StackPath

accounts do differ, especially over time.

 

[peperez]

Not in service, but with a terrific performance: The Heinkel He100 and the Focke Wulf FW187 with DB 600 engines.

 

[SpicyJuan11]

Not in service, but with a terrific performance: The Heinkel He100 and the Focke Wulf FW187 with DB 600 engines.

The Fw 187 was still being developed in 1942/43 which shows you what wasted potential it was.

 

[Shortround6]

Not in service, but with a terrific performance: The Heinkel He100 and the Focke Wulf FW187 with DB 600 engines.

Performance with a combat suitable cooling system and fuel system might be somewhat less terrific.
Likewise performance with a somewhat suitable armament suite.

 

[Vincenzo]

Not in service, but with a terrific performance: The Heinkel He100 and the Focke Wulf FW187 with DB 600 engines.

Actually both see service in the factory defense unit, possibly with no actual engagement

 

[SpicyJuan11]

Performance with a combat suitable cooling system and fuel system might be somewhat less terrific.
Likewise performance with a somewhat suitable armament suite.

Both Erwin Hood and Dietmar Hermann think that their performance would still have been good enough to justify production.

 

[Shortround6]

Of course they would, they are trying to sell books about them.

Performance and combat suitability are not the same thing.

The HE 100 was a flying target, small but in the sense that there was many, many sq ft of vulnerable target area.

When the turtle deck behind the cockpit, the vertical fin and the horizontal stabilizers are all part of the oil cooling system the likely hood of even a few minor hits causing the loss of the aircraft are much greater than conventional aircraft.
A lot of internet bandwidth has been used up discussing if liquid cooled engines were more vulnerable to battle damage than air cooled engines with the old tired argument about the golden BB hitting the radiator (only a few sq ft) and causing the engine to seize minutes later. The He 100 was a flying radiator.

A very large amount of the wing was either radiator/cooling surface or fuel tank.Cooling surfaces are the outer wings and the panels in front of the outer fuel tanks. Fuel tanks are behind the main spar and have a circular filler in each one in the drawing. The are not self sealing.

Often touted as a long range fighter that could have changed the BoB. Even a few .303 hits on the airframe that would have required a bit of sheet metal and a few rivets to fix a 109 would have meant the loss of the He 100. Especially on long range missions.

Not to mention the armament or the lack thereof. Does anybody really believe that Heinkel got the through the hub 20mm guns to work in the summer of 1939 but it took Messerschmidt until the fall/winter of 1940 to get the same gun to work in the just about the same engine? Not to mention the drum was only good for 60 rounds?
Roughly 1/2 the ammunition (cannon and machine gun) that a 109E carried, assuming the gun works.

Yes you can fix some of the problems, like put a real cooling system in it and make the tanks self sealing but then some of the speed goes away as does the range with lower capacity fuel tanks.

 

[PAT303]

It might be the brain damage talking but I just remembered reading about a Japanese pilot who in one fight, took on multiple American fighters successfully with an aging Zero. The source was either "Samaurai" by Saburo Sakai or "Zero" by Masatake Okumiya.

From what I remember of that story the American pilots were too busy getting into each others way to fight properly and none would slow down and enter a turning fight so nothing much happened.