Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

[morse1001]

You mention both the Spit Mk1 and the Me109E and how they compared. Surely that is a question that ply someone who has flown both can answer?

I have Pilots notes for the Spit Mk2 and the Me109E but it would be impossible to give an answer based on the notes.

Chuck Yeager said that the P39 was one of his favorite mounts! Also, the P39s sent to the RAF, did not have the turbo-supercharger that was standard in the early models, hence the poor high level performance.

Best, well I suppose I would have to say the Spitfire, but at heart I am a Hurricane man!!

But the FW190 comes a very close second!

[adamcotton]

Adrian, thanks for the compliment...

Yes, I know about the Mustang's radiator but cannot recall if it was deliberately designed that way or was simply a happy accident. Either way, I would imagine that the performance increment it conferred was more imaginary than real, probably in the region of an extra 2-3mph on the level speed, if that! It was similarly claimed by Republic that the turbo-supercharger they put into their P-47 Thunderbolt added to the fighter's speed because of the way it vented spent engine exhaust gases (actually used to spin the turbine at 22,00 rpm) overboard, rather like the propuslive reaction to a jet engine efflux. Again, I tend to think the actual performance increment was minimal, but I may be wrong...

The laminar flow wing was what did it for the Mustang - it had a lower coefficient of lift because the centre of lift was two thirds of the way along the chordline, as opposed to a more conventional aerofoil section's one third, but it offered very tangible performance increases in terms of absolute and high cruising speeds. Also, the Mustang was a very streamlined aircraft generally, which meant it required fewer horsepower per pound of airframe weight to propel it at any given speed - which translates directly into increased range.

By the way, during my eulogy to the Spitfire yesterday I forgot to mention that it had the highest limiting mach number of any fighter of WW2 - courtesy of Mitchell's beautifully thing elliptical wing (which incidentally he didn't personally design) As the recce versions were even cleaner aerodynamically than the fighter variants, it was decided that a Spit PR XI be used during a series of trials at Farnborough in the Spring of 1944 to explore handling as aircraft dived at speeds close to the sound barrier. On one such dive from 40,500ft, pilot Sqn/Ldr Marty Martinale reached a true airspeed (ie indicated airspeed corrected for instrument, position and temperature error) of 606 mph, or .89 mach!

American 2nd Lieutenant Raymond Hurtienne ingenously claimed to have actually "broken" the sound barrier in a dive from 35,000 feet in his P-47 in 1944,
clocking over 750mph.....certainly a TAS of 750mph at 25- 35,000 feet would have been supersonic flight, but the fact remains no prop driven aircraft could ever go through mach 1 because the prop itself acts as a huge aerodynamic brake....

I've no doubt that the dive Hurtinenne performed probably felt supersonic, and with only manual elevator controls, not powered, one can only admire his courage, but his ASI was either over-reading (possibly caused by a static vent blockage, ice maybe) or the airframe was shaking so much it was impossible to tell with any accuracy what the instruments were really reading and he simply wronly read the numbers.

Anyway, time to grab a bite to eat.

[adamcotton]

Hi Morse,

Regarding your comments on the Spit/Me109 debate (and the P-39.)

I entirely agree that only a pilot who has flown both types could really make an authoritative assessment of the relative merits of both aircraft. However, my statements were based on many interviews with pilots who have flown the Spitfire in combat against the Me109 and the detailed analysis contained in Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU) reports - the AFDU having been formed specifically to evaluate allied fighter types against their captured axis adversaries. Also, I would refer you to the excellent book by Jeffery Quill - "Spitfire: Birth of a legend". Few men knew the Spifire's strengths and weaknesses as well as Quill!

As for the P-39, I'm sure Yeager may well have liked it as a pure flying machine, but he never had to fly it into combat! I was talking about its effectiveness as a fighter, not as fun run about....

Also, the P-39 was NEVER fitted with a turbo-supercharger, just the standard Alison V1710 of 1,050hp - or about the same as a Spifire I. I think perhaps you are confusing the issue with the first Lockheed P-38s that the RAF received, which did indeed have their turbo-superchargers removed and, as a result, suffered significant peformance loss at altitude.

Cheers.

[morse1001]

Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 22 2005, 05:42 PM
Hi Morse,

Regarding your comments on the Spit/Me109 debate (and the P-39.)

I entirely agree that only a pilot who has flown both types could really make an authoritative assessment of the relative merits of both aircraft. However, my statements were based on many interviews with pilots who have flown the Spitfire in combat against the Me109 and the detailed analysis contained in Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU) reports - the AFDU having been formed specifically to evaluate allied fighter types against their captured axis adversaries. Also, I would refer you to the excellent book by Jeffery Quill - "Spitfire: Birth of a legend". Few men knew the Spifire's strengths and weaknesses as well as Quill!

As for the P-39, I'm sure Yeager may well have liked it as a pure flying machine, but he never had to fly it into combat! I was talking about its effectiveness as a fighter, not as fun run about....

Also, the P-39 was NEVER fitted with a turbo-supercharger, just the standard Alison V1710 of 1,050hp - or about the same as a Spifire I. I think perhaps you are confusing the issue with the first Lockheed P-38s that the RAF received, which did indeed have their turbo-superchargers removed and, as a result, suffered significant peformance loss at altitude.

Cheers.

Quoted post

Its poor high-altitude performance was a result of a critical decision made early in the Airacobra's design process, namely, the decision to remove the turbosupercharger.

P39

The powerplant of the XP-39 was the 1150 hp Allison V-1710-17 (E2) l2-cylinder liquid-cooled Vee which was fitted with a B-5 two-stage turbosupercharger on the portside of the central fuselage.

The most serious change, however, was the elimination of the turbosupercharger, and its replacement by a single-stage geared supercharger.

Yeager wrote:

I was one of the the few who loved the thirty-nine and would have gladly flown it off to war

[adamcotton]

Hi Morse,

When I said the P-39 was never fitted with a turbo-supercharger I did, of course, mean the productions machines, not the prototype. It's hardly surprising they decided to elimate the turbo-supercharger: the weight and complexity of the enormous crankshaft, the 37mm cannon, the car type doors, and the beefing up of the rear fuselage necessitated by all the gearing, etc, from the engine, already placed the aircraft overweight for its power output. The weight and complexity of a turbo-supercharger would have added still further to the burden that would have far outweighed any increase in power from the engine at altitude.

As for Yeager's comment that he would have been quite happy to take a P-39 to war, well all I can say is that Yeager is also on record as stating that the best pilot in a fight will always be the victorious one even if flying an inferior machine. Superlative test pilot though Yeager undoubtedly was, he wa - even by test pilot standards - a supreme egoist, and I think his remark is merely another expression of that egoism. Any other pilot who went near the ircobra hated it, and I think that majority voice speaks volumes...

[adrian roberts]

So where do the Japanese and Russian products fit in?
In 1941-42 the A6M2 Zero swept all before it, but there were no Spitfires out there at the time. It was extremely manouverable and had a cannon armament (which the Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar, otherwise also extremely good, lacked). How did these aircraft fare against the Hurricane when they eventually got them out there? I believe the USN F4F pilots got the better of the Zeros not by having better equipment but by disciplined tactics of diving on them from a great height and not getting involved in dogfights. The F6F was the first type in the region to be superior to the later Zero versions.
Later in the war, the Nakijima Ki-84 Hayate was, on paper at least, up with the best allied types, but compromised by the unreliable Homare engine. The Mitsubishi J2M Raiden got some positive write-ups under allied testing after the war.
On the Eastern Front, the Lavochkin La7 and -9 and the Yak-9 and -11 were certainly to be treated with respect. They were crude devices compared to the FW190, but does anyone know how they compared in combat with pilots of equal ability?
Adrian

[Dac]

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Aug 22 2005, 04:54 PM
So where do the Japanese and Russian products fit in?
In 1941-42 the A6M2 Zero swept all before it, but there were no Spitfires out there at the time. It was extremely manouverable and had a cannon armament (which the Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar, otherwise also extremely good, lacked). How did these aircraft fare against the Hurricane when they eventually got them out there? I believe the USN F4F pilots got the better of the Zeros not by having better equipment but by disciplined tactics of diving on them from a great height and not getting involved in dogfights. The F6F was the first type in the region to be superior to the later Zero versions.
Later in the war, the Nakijima Ki-84 Hayate was, on paper at least, up with the best allied types, but compromised by the unreliable Homare engine. The Mitsubishi J2M Raiden got some positive write-ups under allied testing after the war.
On the Eastern Front, the Lavochkin La7 and -9 and the Yak-9 and -11 were certainly to be treated with respect. They were crude devices compared to the FW190, but does anyone know how they compared in combat with pilots of equal ability?
Adrian

Quoted post

When Australian Spitfires first met the Zero over Darwin they suffered badly, losing 11 aircraft and eight pilots. The Zeros' manoeuvrability meant it had the advantage in a turning fight with any early WW II Allied fighter. The American Navy dealt with this by developing the Thach Weave, where two aircraft constantly cleared each others tail.

The Russian Yaks were not as sophisticated as the German Fw-190 but at altitudes under 16,000 feet could actually outperform German fighters. One model, I think it was the Yak-3 had such superior performance, that German fighter pilots were instructed to avoid it in combat.

[morse1001]

Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 22 2005, 10:29 PM
Hi Morse,

When I said the P-39 was never fitted with a turbo-supercharger I did, of course, mean the productions machines, not the prototype. It's hardly surprising they decided to elimate the turbo-supercharger: the weight and complexity of the enormous crankshaft, the 37mm cannon, the car type doors, and the beefing up of the rear fuselage necessitated by all the gearing, etc, from the engine, already placed the aircraft overweight for its power output. The weight and complexity of a turbo-supercharger would have added still further to the burden that would have far outweighed any increase in power from the engine at altitude.

As for Yeager's comment that he would have been quite happy to take a P-39 to war, well all I can say is that Yeager is also on record as stating that the best pilot in a fight will always be the victorious one even if flying an inferior machine. Superlative test pilot though Yeager undoubtedly was, he wa - even by test pilot standards - a supreme egoist, and I think his remark is merely another expression of that egoism. Any other pilot who went near the ircobra hated it, and I think that majority voice speaks volumes...

Quoted post

First of all, welcome to the boards and thanks for your comments on the Jack Charles story.

I do not want to get off on the wrong foot, as i belive you have much to contribute to the boards but........

Yeager may be a egotist, but that does not mean that we should discount anything he says, after Eric Brown the Test pilot spoke highly of the P39. In addition, Yeager had flown combat missions in both WW2 and in Vietnam.

As for pilots hating it, yeager provides a clue as to why that was, he mentions that the P39 used in training were not well maintained.

[adamcotton]

Hi Morse,

This debate on the P-39 seems somehow very emotive! I certainly don't want to "wrong foot" anyone; after all, we are all just having fun here. But I do apologize if my remarks come across as arrogance. It's simply that as someone who spends a great deal of time researching and writing (and earning a supplemental income in the process, so I have to be as sure as I can be of my facts), questioning everything is now second nature to me - even if it does mean treading on the toes of a few sacred cows from time to time....

So, if I may be permitted to return to the subject of the P-39 for one last airing, I promise I'll then shut up about it!!

First off, let me state that, as a pilot myself, I have the profoundest respect for the abilities and judgement of Yeager, and fully acknowledge that he is a far more skilled and experienced pilot (as is Eric Brown for that matter) than I could ever hope to be in my wildest dreams......

Also, in defence of the P-39, I have no doubt whatsoever that any enemy fighter unfortunate enough to find itself in the firing line of its huge 37mm cannon would have, quite literally, been cannon fodder with a very few seconds. It's destructive power was awesome! Also, low down - if it had well harmonized aeilerons - it would have been a delight to fly, as its wings were on the short side and therefore its roll rate quite high.

However, I cannot believe that the RAF, at a time in 1941 when they were still relatively short of good fighter aircraft, would have dismissed it - first from the air to air role, then from the ground attack role also - if it had any merit in either area of operations. Plainly, it wasn't suited to the day fighter war in western Europe and the RAF, by then with more than 18 months hard worn experience in that arena, was best fitted to make that judgement.

Another accomplished test pilot - in fact, the subject of my next article, George Welch - flew the P-39 in New Guinea in early 1943, and he despised it, referring to it disparigingly as "The Iron Dog"! (derived from the consensus "absolute dog" it became above 12.000 feet). Even more alarming, as far as Welch was concerned, was its very limited radius of action. Welch repeatedly requested a transfer to a P-38 squadron, and eventually got it!

I think one may here draw an analogy with the Me 110 which, prior to its baptism of fire, was seen the cream of the Luftwaffe's fighter force, an all conquering destroyer, the folly of which was highlighted only during the Battle of Britain. If one takes the P-39's merits in isolation, principally its heavy armament - like the Me110 - it might easily be seen to posess potential it really didn't have. Welch and most of the P-39s pilots saw the folly of its design concept all to clearly when they had to take it into battle; so did the RAF. I am not wiser or smarter than Yeager or Eric Brown, I simply have the benefit of a hindsight they did not possess.

Personally, when one considers the weight of the P-39 cannon, lubrication systems, gearing, elongated crankshaft, fuselage strengthening, plus the weight of a fully retractable tricycle undercarriage, the only wonder left for me to ponder is how, at the same time as the P-40, P-51, and P-47 were being designed, Bell ever thought their product was anywhere in the same league...

[adamcotton]

Hi all,

The Japanese fighters, as is widely known, derived their agility from their light weight. They lacked armour, self sealing fuel tanks, even a parachute for the pilot! Their construction was light; one well placed burst of even .303 in machine gun fire was usually enough to turn them into a crumpling wreck or an instant fireball...

What is not as often realised is that the Japenese fighters engines' produced a lot less power than those of the allies; the Army's principal fighter of the mid-war years - the "Oscar" - suffered, for instance (particularly at altitude) from a poor climb performance. The same was true of the "Zero" (or "Navy "O"). Even the venerable Hawker Hurricane could both out-climb and out-dive the "Zero" and the "Oscar" - at least according to Terrence Kelly (see "Hurricane & Spitfire Pilots At War) who flew the type in action against both in 1942. As a result, RAF pilots employed the same "dive and slash" attacks as the Americans did, and as the Luftwaffe had attempted to do against their more agile RAF opponents in 1940.