Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

[adamcotton]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye90

Performance wise i would go with P-51, the Spitfire would not be far behind though.

Actually, the P-51 had some limitations: it was not as manouverable as the Spitfire nor could it climb as fast. It was for these reasons that Johnnie Johnson, the leading British ace in the ETO, voted the Mustang the best offensive fighter of the war, but the Spitfire the best defensive fighter. Moreover, the Mustang's laminar flow wing produced some tricky handling characteristics, particularly at low speeds or under high "g"s, which could make it a handful for inexperienced pilots. The P-51s main advantage over the Spitfire - indeed, any fighter of the period - was its extremely long legs. However, it should be remembered that will all internal fuel tanks full and with underwing drop tanks, the 51 was extremely heavy and unable to dogfight; it was also extemely unstable in pitch, making a take-off a point in the flight for the pilot to hold his breath!

[charly105]

My favourite plane is the Focke Wulff TA-152.

[Andy in West Oz]

Originally Posted by adamcotton

As regards the Mosquito, the fighter variants were extremely effective. I've heard it said that a Mossie on one engine could still tackle a 109 on even terms, though I'm inclined to think if that's true then it applied only to the lighter, bomber versions. Having said that, I interviewed a Beaufighter pilot many years ago and he said a Mossie with one engine shut down was still as fast as a Hurricane IIC at full bore - so who knows? Ultimately, it all boils down to personal preferences, and has as much to do with perceived asthetics as it does with actual performance in the air.

Just managed to finish off the appendices of Silently into the Midst of Things, 177 Sqn Beaus in Burma. There was a comment about an op on an airfield with some Mossies and Beaus in late 44. The Mossies were told if they saw a Beau on one engine to stay with it and the Beaus, rather cheekily I thought, were told if they saw a Mossie on one engine to try to keep up!

Love both aircraft to bits but for ground attack, I think I would prefer the Beau. Bit more hardy, I reckon.

[PFC]

I've voted for P-51 Mustang, but, in my opinion, even the best aircraft is worthless without ground supply, good pilots, well-placed airfields etc.

[Arlo]

I'd say the Battle of Britain Hero, the Spitfire. Strong armament, fast and maneuverable, it was the best to intercept bombers, strafing and air-to-air dogfights.

[spidge]

Originally Posted by PFC

I've voted for P-51 Mustang, but, in my opinion, even the best aircraft is worthless without ground supply, good pilots, well-placed airfields etc.

All things being equal you reckon.

[P51fan]

The P51 is the best fighter of World War 2 hands down. She was considered the "Cadillac" of fighter planes. No other fighter could match her speed, climbing ability or firepower!

A truely beautiful plane and a terror in the skies!

[uksubs]

Originally Posted by adamcotton

Actually, the P-51 had some limitations: it was not as manouverable as the Spitfire nor could it climb as fast. It was for these reasons that Johnnie Johnson, the leading British ace in the ETO, voted the Mustang the best offensive fighter of the war, but the Spitfire the best defensive fighter. Moreover, the Mustang's laminar flow wing produced some tricky handling characteristics, particularly at low speeds or under high "g"s, which could make it a handful for inexperienced pilots. The P-51s main advantage over the Spitfire - indeed, any fighter of the period - was its extremely long legs. However, it should be remembered that will all internal fuel tanks full and with underwing drop tanks, the 51 was extremely heavy and unable to dogfight; it was also extemely unstable in pitch, making a take-off a point in the flight for the pilot to hold his breath!

Good post
When the Spitfire XIV was tested against the P51 it worked out a even match but I'm going to vote for P51 as it took the fight to the Germans in there own back yard

[Christos]

We really are ignoring Soviet aircraft......in a lot of cases, Soviet pilots could never get the best from their superior machines due to lack of pilot experience.....dealing with the 'experten' was tough, and many a good Soviet design suffered from this fundamental flaw. A superior machine flown by an inferior pilot will always be beaten by an inferior machine flown by an expert, who can take the machine to it's limits and beyond. Eddie Rickenbacker always said that a pilot must have good technical and practical knowledge of his machine BEFORE he trains to kill in it. His 94th Aero Squadron (Hat in the Ring) was originally to be composed of ex-racing car drivers, who, like Eddie himself, had the reflexes and the mechanical skill to get the most out of their machines....Rickenbacker got most of his 27? victories in an inferior SPAD, fighting German machines that were much better, and frequently pilots who were more experienced too. Rickenbacker gets my vote as the Greatest fighter pilot LEADER of all time....my vote for the best fighter pilot would be the German Hans Joachim Marseilles. Flying in tennis shoes, and able to fire his weapons from any deflection and with his machine at any angle or roll, Marsielles was simply the most natural fighter pilot ever, with multiple kills on the same day many times over....and his weapon was exclusively the inferior ME 109, an aircraft sadly obselete but who's qualities in the hands of 'experten' probably make it the logical choice for the most influential fighter design of all time....the Russians had a particular liking for the Bell 'AeroCobra', rear mounted engine and all!.....a particular favourite of Soviet pilots at mid-low altitudes.....

[4th wilts]

the typhoon is best remembered iin ground attack,but was also a super low-mid altitude fighter.yours,4th wilts.