What was the best stop-gap fighter of WWII?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Well...I disagree with your conclusions.

So do a few others. Performance wise, the Fw 190D-9 was not even in the same ballpark as the late model A's...

It was a "stop-gap" for the (fully redesigned) Ta 152, and it put a very capable machine into service on a shoestring budget...this amidst utter industry chaos.

In my humble opinion? It and the Spit MkIX are vying for the title and if I had to fight in one of these two during the period? That should be a no brainer.

Enough said.
 

Ref the bits in bold.

The Spitfire V entered service in March/April 1941, by which time the daylight portion of the Battle of Britain had been over for almost six months. It was never really a 'stop gap' - more of a conversion of the Mk I to take advantage of the newer Merlin 40 series of engines. It was a front line fighter through and through in 1941/1942, although its closest opposition - the 109F-2/4 and the FW 190 - generally outperformed it. The Mk V's front line service in the ETO came to a close only mid-way through 1944 - when the 'clipped, cropped and clapped' LF Mk Vc was withdrawn from service. Some iterations of the Mk V (Seafire Mk III) served through to the end of the war.

The Hurricane might have been the "real Battle of Brittan Fighter" - accounting for a little under 2/3rds of all Fighter Command daylight sorties in the Battle of Britain - but it wasn't a stop-gap. The Hurricane was designed to meet the same specification as the Spitfire - F.36/34 - and the aircraft were true contemporaries in the BoB period.

The Hurricane didn't quite have the performance of contemporaries, a fact that the RAF realised in early 1941, which saw the aircraft increasingly used for ground attack - the famous 'Hurribomber' - while the Spitfire was used at the RAF's primary fighter type throughout the war.
 
I have a very different definition of "stop gap fighter". I fail to see how aircraft that were designed as fighters and were the top planes available at the time should be considered "stop gap" The certainly goes for the P-38, which was an outstanding plane in almost all respectsand rarely outclassed, as well as even the P-40 and P-39. These planes were designed fighters that represented the peak of what was available to the US when pressed into combat. To me, a "stop gap" fighter is an aircraft that was not really a fighter to begin. Can there be any better example that the Commonwealth Boomerang?
 
By that argument the Wirraway was a better stop gap fighter than the Boomerang since it at least shot down one Oscar whereas the Boomerang never scored.
Sptfire IX for me but I also see the 190D as a great stopgap and one that should have been focussed on more.
 

When I posted this thread I gave my definition as a stop-gap fighter as one that wa pushed into service in a role it was not designed for. By that definition I would contend that he P-38 was a stop-gap, as it was designed as a bomber interceptor but forced into other roles such as a bomber escort because it was the only American fighter withing miles of the performance of the opposing german aircraft. I agree that fighters like the F4F, P-40 or P-39 don't qualify because I believe they were mostly used in the roles they were designed for, but struggled to compete. That doesn't make them stop-gaps, it makes them inferior.
Regarding the P-38 being an outstanding aircraft, I think thats a bit of a stretch. I know I'm at risk of sounding like a P-38 basher to the legions of Lightning fans out there but it was a good aircraft, not an outstanding one. It did great in the Pacific where it faced japanese fighters built to an almost diametrically opposite philosophy but considerably less so in the ETO where it faced opposition with at least equal high speed, high altitude performance . Only in it's final variants did it really achieve parity with the best German opposition, and that at greater cost per unit than alternative designs. Put bluntly, for most of the time in the ETO there were better options available. Nonetheless, there is no denying that, even shoved into a job it was not really designed to do, the Lightning in the ETO gave stirling service and represented real opposition to the Luftwaffe until the P-51 came along with extra bang for the buck.
 
In your first post "By this I mean, which of the many examples of WWII fighters that were rushed in to service in the name of wartime expediency, or shoehorned into roles they were not originally designed for, ultimately went on to the most success?"

While the US was not at war the P-40 was ordered in the name of expediency as it was considered inferior to both the P-38 and P-39 but could be put into production and delivered much sooner and considering the world situation 2nd best was considered better than no fighters or 3rd best ( more P-35 or P-36s).

Many fighters were "shoehorned" into roles they were not originally designed for. The P-47 was not designed to be an escort fighter and it was not designed to be a ground support plane. Very few pre war or early war fighters were designed to be fighter bombers in the sense of 250-1000kg bomb loads. 50-110kg loads perhaps but not like the later planes. They eventually replaced (for the most part) single engine light tactical bombers and even small twins.


In the late 30s the idea of a single engine escort fighter was thought impossible and while the P-38 was not "designed" as an escort fighter it was "designed" to carry about the same armament as the P-39 at the same speed and height with about the same climb BUT with TWICE the endurance.

While the MK IX Spitfire and the Fw 190D-9 didn't really change roles (both were intended as air superiority day fighters) from their predecessors both were fast conversions for improved performance in the existing role while a better version with more changes was worked on at the same time.

The Typhoon could be considered as being rushed in to service in the name of wartime expediency. It was certainly used before it was really ready.

Part of the P-38s poor reputation in the ETO comes from the fact that it took a long, long time to really use the P-38 in the ETO. The units and aircraft kept being siphoned off to NA and Italy ( were they faced at least some German aircraft) so that operational experience was both slow in being acquired and slow to be implemented due the need for maximum production (fewest changes). P-47 production totals do not exceed the P-38 until some time in the Spring of 1944. The P-38 was far from perfect but being a leading edge aircraft is a hard position to stay in for for than a few years.
 
I think we are getting a few definitions mixed up here - "stop-gap" is literally a temporary expedient; putting a fighter into the role of a ground attack aircraft isn't the same thing. The Spit Mk.IX is a good example because the Mk.V was modified to take a Sixty Series (two-speed two-stage supercharged) Merlin to match the Fw 190 before the Spit Mk.VIII entered service. Conversely, the Wirraway was not a stop-gap fighter just because it shot down an Oscar; the Boomerang was, however, even if it didn't shoot one down - it was designed for that purpose - as a temporary expedient, although it found much service as a ground attack platform. To my mind, aircraft like the Miles M.20 or Boulton Paul's P.94 were stop-gap fighters. Both were designed to be built if production of the Spit or Hurri got held up during the Battle of Britain. The latter was a single-seat Defiant with 12 .303 machine guns or four .303s and four 20 mm cannon in its wings, in case y'all are wondering.

I'm with Shorty about the P-38, too. It was not a stop-gap and it can be considered an outstanding aircraft; not just in my opinion either. In the Pacific it had the range to take the fight to the Japanese and was the only US Army fighter to be able to do so until the arrival of the P-51 - the Yamamoto shoot down is a good example of its capabilities. There were few other twin engined fighters that could hold their own against single engined fighters like the P-38 could. So it didn't do so well in the ETO? The Hurricane didn't do so well in the Far East either, but to deny its legendary status would be sacrilege based on its record during the Battle of Britain, even if it was out-classed as a pure fighter from 1941 on. The P-38 was a masterpiece of aerodynamic design and weight saving; a very well thought out piece of kit, although it had bugs that needed to be ironed out, the soundness of the basic design meant that once things were sorted it showed its true colours on the day - and I'm not a Lightning Lover either.
 
In terms of performance, the Spitfire XIV would probably trump the IX stop-gap. Technically, the Spitfire XVIII was to be the latest, but the XIV entered service in its stead. It has a slightly superior range (especially the FR. XIV) than the IX and easily better performance, though it did nowhere near as much work as the IX.
 

I guess the fun of these threads is that we can all give ourselves some leeway in our definitions and thus push our own candidates. In retrospect maybe the Typhoon should be excluded as a spop-gap fighter because it did not find its niche as a fighter as such. Likewise there is a case for the P 40 as it was a second best option in terms of performance but gave solid service while other existing, superior, options were bought into mass production.
Re the P-38, I'm going to stick with my assessment as a good fighter rather than a great one, but I am happy to concede that this is because it was so often used in a manner outside its bure design brief. If the strategic situation had required the Lightning to operate only in that brief, as a bomber interceptor (in the BoB, say) it probably would have reached outstanding status. But to me an 'outstanding' fighter, without qualification, would be one that could be shown to have filled a single role supremely well – such as the Spitfire XIV as a point interceptor or the Merlin Powered P-51 as an escort fighter.
 
Hey Cobber, interesting thread nonetheless and I agree about the Typhoon; it's not a stop gap since it was put into service as a fighter to replace the Hurricane from the start and its airframe let it down (as well as its overly complex engine); the decision to put it into service as a ground attack aircraft was made because it demonstrated excellent capabilities in this role, not because the RAF were desperately short of attack aircraft. I have to disagree about the Spit XIV being a stop-gap however; it wasn't, it was an improvement on the Mk.XII, which was essentially an evolutionary step in the Spitfire's genesis with the fitting of the Griffon engine, not to fulfil a temporary space in the RAF's need for a new more powerful fighter.

As for the P-38, gee man, you're being a bit hard on the ole Fork Tailed Devil, but that's your opinion I guess.

But to me an 'outstanding' fighter, without qualification, would be one that could be shown to have filled a single role supremely well
Click to expand...

I'd say the P-38 did this in spades, even if outshone by the P-51.
 

I meant to nominate the Spit XIV as an 'outstanding' fighter, not a stop-gap fighter. The Spitfore IX seems to be a strong contender in the latter category.
Am I being harsh on the P-38? I think it was a good design fighter – just not an 'outstanding' one. Compare its record in its various marks to the Spitfire, for instance. The spit was in production from the get- go to the final shot, and after. In between, except for a brief period when the Fw190 ruled the roost, it was as good as or better than any contemporary opposition, performance- wise. In comparison, The P-38 struggled a bit against much of its opposition much of the time, and was far more expensive to boot. As I mentioned earlier, if it had been deployed mostly in the role it was designed for, as the spitfire generally was, we might be able to look back on a record that would support the claim that it was 'outstanding', but that didn't happen. We might be also be able to point to a place and time when it was outstanding, such as the PTO, but it was simultaneously less than outstanding in the ETO.
So, for me, the Spitfire was an outstanding fighter, as were the Merlin engines P-51s. The P-38 was a good one, maybe a very good one, but very good wins a silver medal, not gold
 
The point of the P-38 was much like that of the P-51 ( which was the better fighter), maybe it wasn't as good as a particular contemporary Spitfire. Or even quite the full equal of a particular German plane at a given point in time. But just like the P-51 could fight over Berlin late in the war the P-38 could support the Sicily invasion from bases in North Africa or fly long missions in the Pacific.It could fly and fight, at least with a reasonable expectation of succeeding at distances that most other fighters of the time could not. It may not have been designed as an escort fighter but that extra hour of endurance in the original specification over the P-39 meant that it could and did out-range most contemporaries.

A silver medal plane that is actually flying overhead or along side is better than a gold medal plane that turned back 100 miles short of the present position.
 

I would suggest that the XII, XIV and XVIII were all stop gap fighters - in the sense that definitive Griffon Spitfire was to be the 21 (or was it XX?). The XII was created in much teh same way and for much the same need as the IX - to combat the Fw 190. The XIV used the new MK VIII airframe, but still had compromises (like needing a smaller diameter prop, due to having to angle the engine to get a better view over the nose). The 21 had the new wing and was desigend around teh Griffon.
 

All true enough. And if we stick with the athletics analogy, a silver medal decathlete might never quite get the accolades of a gold medal sprinter but sometimes ten things done very well is more useful than one thing done brilliantly.
 
True, Cobber, good point.

Wuzak, sorry, nope, none of those Griffon engined Spits could really be stop-gap fighters, all evolutionary steps - there are those that argue that the differences in the F.21 were so different that it shouldn't be a Spitfire (one name suggested was "Victor"), but (if you go to the Members Spitfire Thread, you'll see photos I posted of an F.21 under restoration) the centre fuselage from Frame 5 (the firewall) to Frame 19 (where the tail section bolts on) is the same as in earlier Marks. Not really stop-gaps, but progressive steps, each incorporating mods and improvements that defined them as different from previous Marks.

The 'IX stands out because it was not (strictly) an evolutionary step - the 'VIII was next as a new development, the 'IX side stepped it by conversion on the production line of unfinished 'Vs to meet the Fw 190 threat, thus defining it as a stop-gap, appearing before the 'VIII.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly evolution. The 21 was developed at the same time as the XII and XIV. The XII was definitely an interim design - Mk V airframe with a Griffon, basically. Just as much a stop gap as the IX. And for teh same purpose - catching Fw 190s, particularly at low level for the XII.

If the XIV is an evolution of anything, it is of the VIII, not the XII.

From memory, the Griffon Spits were always intended to get the new wing, which appeared in the 21. This had been in development from about 1942, if not earlier.
 
Just as much a stop gap as the IX. And for teh same purpose - catching Fw 190s, particularly at low level for the XII.
Click to expand...

Not really; the idea was like that of the Mustang - the potential of the airframe meant that it was possible to fit a more powerful engine than the one it was fitted with, yes to counter the Fw 190, but the urgency had gone by then with the 'IX being produced instead of the 'V, so no, not stop-gap, but evolution.

If the XIV is an evolution of anything, it is of the VIII, not the XII.
Click to expand...

Yes, the XIV was based on the VIII, but in reality the only similarity with the 'VIII that had not appeared in other Spits in the XIV was its tail section. Its wings had already appeared on the 'V, its engine on the XII. Its fuselage was the same as the 'V, which was the same in every mark of Spit, including the F.21. Even the low back Spits had the same fuselage design, just with the top deck removed and a new canopy fitted. but, yes, you are right; it and subsequent Griffon Spits evolved from the VIII. Evolved, not stop-gap.

The F.21's wing was first fitted and trialled on the Spit 'IV (DP851), which was the test bed for the '21. The wing was developed because it was recognised that the 'XIV suffered from limitations because of the earlier wing design, hence the new wing. Again, evolutionary, not stop-gap.
 
Wuzak, I get what you're saying regarding the Griffon Spits, but I think you are looking down the wrong end of the telescope; what you are describing as "stop-gap" is merely the too-ing and fro-ing of fighter design by two sides to match the improvements made by the opposite side. This is not a stop-gap situation, but merely evolution; each subsequent design is bettered through experimentation and analysis brought about by an emerging threat.

The difference with a stop-gap is the urgency of the situation; the immediacy that a change must be made based on a rapidly changing situation. Aircraft like the Miles M.20, Boulton Paul P.94 or CAC Boomerang were true stop-gap designs - as was the Spit 'IX because of the immediacy of their development and their ultimate raison d' etre. Sure, these types (can't think of others right now - getting ready for work) were designed as fighters, but their performance (except the Spit IX) was inferior to contemporaries - they weren't designed to last, only to satisfy an immediate need until something better came along.
 

The wing was under development before the XIV was.

nuuumannn said:
Its wings had already appeared on the 'V, its engine on the XII.
Click to expand...

The XII had a single stage Griffon, the XIV a 2 stage Griffon. So, not the same engine (although the same family of engine).

Not sure about the wings. I was under the impression that the VIII had upgraded wings compared to the V and, therefore, so did the XIV.
 

Urgency can't be the only definining feature of a stop gap aircraft. The IX and XIV are types of stop gaps until the definitive developmets were ready (ie VIII - definitive 2 stage Merlin Spitfire, and 21 - definitive Griffon Spitfire). Te IX and XIV were shortcut developments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Barrett
B
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
GrauGeist
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Why was it?
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
yulzari
What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
10K
mikewint
Menu
Log in
Register