What WW2 fighters should be compared?

[michael rauls]

Zipper730, the only restriction on comparisons I would consider inarguable would be between aircraft that don't have combat service that overlaps in time.

While I would certainly not argue that using that as the only stipulation for comparison is " wrong" I would point out that would leave us comparing the p40 and the Me262 for example. Yes one certainly could do it but seems to me its kinda like compairing the p51 and the f86 Saber. That is they are separated by several waves of technological advancements in time and therefore not really comparable in any kind of "fair" sense. My humble opinion anyway.

 

[Kevin J]

Meeserschmitt Bf 109 vs Supermarine Spitfire. Every variant by years. Perfect rival ever.

No doubt.

For the ETO, yes, for the MTO, no. Yes, the Spitfire Vb TROP is okay to operate from Malta, but lacks the structural strength and performance of the Tomahawk II / Kittyhawk I for operation in the Western Desert. You need to wait for the Spitfire Vc in mid 1942 in the MTO for the comparison to work again. I'd argue based on results, that our best fighter from mid 1942 in the Western Desert is the P-40F until the arrival of the Spitfire IX.

 

[Shortround6]

As for the pursuit fighter concept of a fighter to support the army in the field, only the Hurricane was suitable for this role between 1939 and 1942. The Spitfire only arrives on the scene to do this with the Spitfire Vc in mid 1942.

The Hurricane was suitable as a fighter to support the army in the field in 1939-40 how? The eight .303s were certainly effective against men, horses and unprotected trucks but then what? I don't believe any of the MK Is ever carried bombs? Nor did the early MK IIs. A few 109s were carrying bombs in the summer of 1940. The Hurricane did a lot of good work as a ground attack machine but that didn't start until 1941.

French Hawk 75s could carry either six or ten 50lb bombs. Records are not clear but the manual/brochure for export Hawks says three 50lb bombs per rack or 5 20-30lb bombs per rack, one rack under each wing. The French may never have used that capability but photos of the wings with racks exist.
The Early P-39s and P-40s are actually quite remarkable in the fact that they broke a long standing custom of US fighters carrying light bombs.

IIRC the Lightning ends up being used as what I would call an Intruder in the ETO.

The British used quite a few planes as Intruders in the Fall of 1940 and into the Spring of 1941, Some Hurricanes but Blenheims and in 1941 Douglas Hovacs begin to be used. Intruder duties were pretty much to fly, at NIGHT, to German airfields and wait for the returning German night bombers.

I am not sure the P-38 Lightning ever flew night missions against German airfields hoping to catch returning german aircraft.

 

[Kevin J]

The Hurricane was suitable as a fighter to support the army in the field in 1939-40 how? The eight .303s were certainly effective against men, horses and unprotected trucks but then what? I don't believe any of the MK Is ever carried bombs? Nor did the early MK IIs. A few 109s were carrying bombs in the summer of 1940. The Hurricane did a lot of good work as a ground attack machine but that didn't start until 1941.

French Hawk 75s could carry either six or ten 50lb bombs. Records are not clear but the manual/brochure for export Hawks says three 50lb bombs per rack or 5 20-30lb bombs per rack, one rack under each wing. The French may never have used that capability but photos of the wings with racks exist.
The Early P-39s and P-40s are actually quite remarkable in the fact that they broke a long standing custom of US fighters carrying light bombs.




The British used quite a few planes as Intruders in the Fall of 1940 and into the Spring of 1941, Some Hurricanes but Blenheims and in 1941 Douglas Hovacs begin to be used. Intruder duties were pretty much to fly, at NIGHT, to German airfields and wait for the returning German night bombers.

I am not sure the P-38 Lightning ever flew night missions against German airfields hoping to catch returning german aircraft.

When talking of our only pursuit type fighter I was referring to British produced fighters. Yes. the Mohawk was probably the better plane of the two. For the Lightning, daytime intruder duties and its use as a fighter bomber in the 9th Air Force. Depends what you mean by intruder, I guess.

 

[Zipper730]

This is definitely a different definition of an interceptor and different development path.

I was talking only about the P-38 and P-39. The British didn't have the same rules we were operating under. Interceptor wasn't double-talk for a high altitude heavy fighter, it really meant what it said on the box.

the Defiant was withdrawn from day time ops because of its vulnerability to enemy fighters and during the Blitz was out best night fighter as two sets of eyes are better than one, radar being added later and being operated by the gunner.

I thought the pilot operated the radar?

While I would certainly not argue that using that as the only stipulation for comparison is " wrong" I would point out that would leave us comparing the p40 and the Me262 for example.

I suppose you could divide the eras into 1939-1941, 1942-1943, 1944-1945. That seems pretty fitting.

 

[michael rauls]

I was talking only about the P-38 and P-39. The British didn't have the same rules we were operating under. Interceptor wasn't double-talk for a high altitude heavy fighter, it really meant what it said on the box.
I thought the pilot operated the radar?

I suppose you could divide the eras into 1939-1941, 1942-1943, 1944-1945. That seems pretty fitting.

I would agree. I thought that planes that first flew within about a year and a half of each other seemed about right for comparison given the fast pace of development. That is it seems like about every year and a half, two years at the most the next wave of technological advancements and new designs would be fielded but one could certainly do it by compartmentalizing the war into specific 2 year sections. That would seem just as valid. To me anyway.

 

[wuzak]

I don't think the Beaufighter started out as a nightfighter. The nightfighter version came out a month or so later

Quite correct, developed as a heavy fighter, first deployed as a night fighter. I stand corrected.

I don't know about the Beaufighter being developed as a heavy fighter, as such, but rather as a quick development to getting a 4 cannon fighter, since the Whirlwind was way behind schedule.

The Beaufighter turned out to not have anywhere near the predicted performance, nor was it as quickly developed as hoped.

Supermarine offered their Type 327 as an alternative to the Whirlwind, but it wasn't looked at favourably, being a development of the Type 324 proposal which competed against the Hawker Tornado and Typhoon proposals.

 

[Kevin J]

I don't know about the Beaufighter being developed as a heavy fighter, as such, but rather as a quick development to getting a 4 cannon fighter, since the Whirlwind was way behind schedule.

The Beaufighter turned out to not have anywhere near the predicted performance, nor was it as quickly developed as hoped.

Supermarine offered their Type 327 as an alternative to the Whirlwind, but it wasn't looked at favourably, being a development of the Type 324 proposal which competed against the Hawker Tornado and Typhoon proposals.

Never heard the one that the Whirlwind was behind schedule before. First flown Oct 38, 5 delivered to 263 squadron in Aug 40, that's quite good, less than 2 years to service entry.
The Beaufighter even better, first flown Jul 39, service intro Jul 40. If we had put a couple of P & W 2800's in it, I'm sure it would have been faster than the Black Widow although too late to defend our skies in the Blitz.

 

[Shortround6]

The Beaufighter even better, first flown Jul 39, service intro Jul 40. If we had put a couple of P & W 2800's in it, I'm sure it would have been faster than the Black Widow although too late to defend our skies in the Blitz.

A few corrections. The Beaufighter was cleared for delivery in July of 1940 and 5 sent to the MUs, four different squadrons each received ONE Beaufighter on Sept 2nd. A 5th squadron got one on Sept 8th. These were only squadrons to operate the Beaufighter in 1940 with about 100 aircraft delivered 1940.
The first operational sortie was on Sept 17th by No. 29 squadron so I guess it depends on what is meant by "service intro".

The only way a Beaufighter with R-2800s was going to be faster than a P-61 is if you put a few rocket engines on it.
Slight exaggeration but try using the cube law. And then figure that the cube law starts to run into problems in mid 300mph range and higher as it doesn't take into account compressibility, not the compressibility that causes changes in pitch/center of lift but the beginning stages that just show a higher drag rise.
This was caught a number of British (and other peoples) projects in the very late 30s.

 

[CORSNING]

I am a true lover of comparing fighter vs. fighter. That was and
still is the reason for my research. That is why I chose 1,000 m.
increments for the performance figures of the aircraft I posted,
so that they could be readily compared.
Official military performance figures no matter what branch of
service or what country, I hold the dearest. Manufacturer's testing
come next. Calculate/estimated graphs/charts like the TAIC reports
are my third choice if nothing else is available. I have over six full
file cabinet drawers of this kind of information that I need a computer
home for.

Kevin,
I believe reading Duels in the Sky by Captain Eric M. Brown and
Fighter Aircraft Performance of WW2, A Comparative Study by
Erik Pilawskii might be a start of what you are looking for.

 

[CORSNING]

I forgot to mention that the timeline of every fighter involved is
an essential part of proper comparisons for fighter vs. fighter.
, Jeff

 

[wuzak]

I forgot to mention that the timeline of every fighter involved is
an essential part of proper comparisons for fighter vs. fighter.
, Jeff

Yep, otherwise we might end up comparing the Spitfire XIV and Bf 109E.

 

[Kevin J]

Yep, otherwise we might end up comparing the Spitfire XIV and Bf 109E.

I think you could do general comparisons, so lets say, compare Spitfire with Bf 109, or Hawk 75/81/87 with Bf 109. I think you could even argue that the P-40K could and should be compared with a Fw 190A in the low altitude role simply because of the amount of boost and h.p. you could get out of the Allison V-1710 at that point in the war.

 

[fliger747]

Ummm L-4 Piper Cub vrs Fiesler Storch?? Interesting combat aircraft, combat in the degree they were shot at. The Storch was a much more complex aircraft, but maybe the Cub could do about 99% of what the Storch could and was (and is) darn simple. Hey they still make Cubs of all sorts! Just an interesting peek at ways different nations approach things.

 

[GrauGeist]

Ummm L-4 Piper Cub vrs Fiesler Storch?? Interesting combat aircraft, combat in the degree they were shot at. The Storch was a much more complex aircraft, but maybe the Cub could do about 99% of what the Storch could and was (and is) darn simple. Hey they still make Cubs of all sorts! Just an interesting peek at ways different nations approach things.

The Storch is still made today by a Serbian company.

 

[fliger747]

Some of the trick cubs have mimicked it's long strut gear and slatted leading edge. I am sure it would be a very interesting, if possibly quirky plane to fly.