Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Claidemore,
accident/loss rate?
Irrelevant - all aircraft have an accident and loss rate. A fighter's success is not measured in terms of its accident rate but in terms of it's primary job - shooting down the adversary.
True, but some had worse loss rates than others and an aircraft with severe design flaws that is more dangerous to its own pilots than the enemy is not a successful design. I'd throw in serviceability as well since a mediocre fighter in the air beats a superb fighter sitting in the hangar being repaired.
did it meet design specs?
If it didn't meet design specs, it wouldn't have been selected for service. Again, I see this as an irrelevance for this particular thread.
I think this was meant more as "did the aircraft do what the designers/air force intended/expected it to do?"
was it easy and inexpensive to produce?
That's a procurement decision not a measure of success.
What's the point of an aircraft with excellent capabilities if you can't produce it quickly enough to replace losses or in large enough numbers to meet operational needs?
I agree except for the USA.What's the point of an aircraft with excellent capabilities if you can't produce it quickly enough to replace losses or in large enough numbers to meet operational needs?
But it was the other way around in the Pacific War. The P-36/Hawk was used in three different episodes, two very brief but another a bit more substantial:I have 4 things to say:
P-36
And before everyone jumps down my throat to say "How can you possibly think the P-36 was worse than the Buffalo?", examine the performance of the 2 types in Finnish service. They were employed in similar numbers, in the same operating theatre and flown by pilots from the same training and experience background, and yet the Buffalo kill-to-loss ratio was significantly higher than that of the P-36.
I agree except for the USA.
The P-38 and P-47 were both very expensive. No other nation would have considered funding such expensive fighter aircraft. The U.S. Army Air Corps simply shoveled unlimited amounts of money at the problem.
A fighter is there to shoot down enemy aircraft - that is the measure of success.
I guess when I asked did it meet design specs, I should have said 'did it do what the designers wanted it to do?', ie home defense, bomber escort, etc. I believe one of the design requirements of the 109 was as a home defense fighter, as was the Spitfire. The Spit was successful in that role, the 109, ultimately, was not. (probably no WWII design could have been successful protecting Germany in 1944/45)
Always with the implications lol so cheap.
Suppose Germany had the Spitfire and GB the Bf 109, would the war go ANY different? No. Period.
Geez. Read the entire post before you go accusing me of taking cheap shots.(probably no WWII design could have been successful protecting Germany in 1944/45)
No single stat tells the whole story, I would just say kill ratio against enemy fighters tells the most of any single stat, when it comes to air combat itself. Air combat itself was not the only operational factor of course, the other very important one being radius of action. If a fighter couldn't get to the fight, it could serve no purpose at all. Range is the most underestimated factor by far IME when people compare fighters.That would be the purpose of an interceptor, a fighter actually has a much broader defintion.
There are a lot of people who place emphasis on kill/loss ratios. A positive or negatvie kill ratio doesn't tell the whole story, but it is a pretty important bit of evidence when evaluating a fighter. Definately not meaningless.
I don't think so.
The inexpensive P-51 was overall superior to high priced P-38s and P-47s.
The dirt cheap Me-109 was competative right up to 1945.
And for their money they got much more capable aircraft.
Higher operational ceilings, longer range than most of the opposition. Heavier armament and the ability to carry larger external load.
you don't get 2000-3000hp fighters for the price of 1200-1500hp fighters. 1200-1500HP fighters can't do the things that 2000-3000hp fighters can do.
The P-51 ( in the versions that were superior) was not available when the P-38 was ordered and the the P-51 ( in the versions that were superior) was not available when the P-47 was ordered.
The Mustang could not carry the war load of a P-38.
THe P-38 carried a marginly heavier gun armament instalation while the -47 carried 33% more gun armament.
It might be interesting to see the tatical radius of some of these planes when toting bombs. P-47 has three mounting points vrs the P-51s two and the P-38 mounting points were good for 2000lbs each.
As for your joke about the 109, good one, I am still laughing.
A fighter is not cheap, no matter what the cost per plane, if you need two or three of the them to do the job of one bigger, more expensive airplane.
The 109 could not carry and did not carry a heavy enough gun armament to do what was needed.
While it may have been a decent fighter bomber in 1941-43 by late 44 and 45 it's bomb load can only be described as embarrasing.
Except for recon aircraft WWII aerial combat did not take place above 30,000 feet. So why spend the money for a monster size turbocharger system that can operate efficiently above 30,000 feet?
SR - Most of your points and questions are good ones but the armament issue relative to the fighter/escort role were irrelevant with respect to results in ETO. The B/C Mustang had half the armament of the Jug but had a much better air to air and air to ground record simply because it had same or better perfromance in the entire altitude ranges the battles were fought and had the legs to get to the battles.