Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

[Dac]

Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 24 2005, 11:15 AM
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.

Quoted post

The Japanese fighters lack of protection reflected the Samurai tradition that was still strong in Japan in WW II. Danger was treated with contempt and less importance was placed on the individual than in Western culture. In the case of the Zero this resulted in a light, maneouverable fighter with a range of almost 2,000 miles. A real advantage on the vast Pacific battlefield.

The A6M2 Zero had a 950 hp engine but weighed only 3,704 lbs empty. This gave it a greater thrust to weight ratio than any Allied fighter it faced early in the war and a much greater intial climb rate. In the hands of an experienced pilot, as many Japanese were at the start of the war, the Zero was a dangerous weapon.

[Gibbo]

I'd go for the Spitfire as the best interceptor over the whole war. By 1944, the Allies had more need of ground attack & long range escorts than interceptors & the P47 & Typhoon were superior to the Spitfire at the former & the P51D at the latter. However, the Spitfire was the best at the fighter's main task of gaining air superiority. Other aircraft bettered it for short periods of the war but over the whole period, the Spitfire comes top for me. The Me262 was the best at the end of the war but wasn't available for most of it. The FW190A was better than the Spitfire V but was then countered by the Spitfire IX. The Zero was very good but the Spitfire could master it once the Allies had realised the correct tactics to use against it.

[morse1001]

Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 24 2005, 05:50 PM
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...

Quoted post

Thought you might like to see this film. its the training film for the P39!

P39

[adamcotton]

Morse,

Thanks very much for the video. Fascinating stuff. After watching it, even I want to go out and fly a P-39!

Seriously though, what strikes me most is how beautifully engineered American warplanes were - such a stark contrast to their axis adversaries, or even allies in some cases! However, there was a saying in Russian aviation circles in WW2 : "The best is the enemy of good enough"!. I think the Russian, Japanese, and to an extent the British design philosophy exempliifies that notion....

If one considers the relative merits of the F-86 Sabre and Mig15 in career, then one is presented with a striking example of the differences in philosophy. The F-86 was the "cadillac of the skies", like its predecessor the P-51. The Mig 15 was more akin to a souped up Mini Cooper - but so much more nifty!

By the way, regarding the early B-17 raids by the RAF: I never claimed to be certain of the nomenclature of the bombers in 41/2, just that they were underarmed. My expertise revolves more aroun the day fighter war in Europe, but I think we both reached the same conclusion ultimately...

[morse1001]

If one considers the relative merits of the F-86 Sabre and Mig15 in career, then one is presented with a striking example of the differences in philosophy. The F-86 was the "cadillac of the skies", like its predecessor the P-51. The Mig 15 was more akin to a souped up Mini Cooper - but so much more nifty!

The ironic thing is that both were powered by the same engine!

[redcoat]

Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 22 2005, 05:27 PM

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....

You are correct in that it is impossible for a prop driven aircraft to break the speed of sound due to the prop acting as a brake, in fact one of the reasons Sqn/Ldr Martinale reached such a high speed in his Spitfire was that the pressure wave smashed his prop, allowing him to reach a higher speed before pulling out of his dive and gliding safely down.

[redcoat]

Best aircraft of WW2,

1939. Spitfire Mk I, a contender for the best fighter.

1945. Spitfire Mk 14, in my view and many others the best piston engined fighter of WW2

It has to be the Spitfire

[TheRedBaron]

Dont like planes... gimme a tank any day!

Not a fighter, but my favourite plane is the Stuka. Sheer ugliness and as aerodynamic as a brick. But you gotta dig those gull wings!

Sorry for that.

I think you have to narrow it down to the US planes because, the Spits were defense fighters only, and the German prop fighters were dominated by all front line US units.

I read an excerpt from Hub Zemke’s book where he led a squadron in all three, the P-47, P-38, and the P-51. He didn’t have an absolute favorite but the excerpt described the advantages that each one had over the other. This is why there is such a religious debate over which was better. It seems to come down to where and how it is used, as well as strengths and weaknesses in the pilots themselves as well as the groups’ tactics. So depending on what you compare, you come up with a different answer even amongst the three. I wish I could find it and post it here because it was quite a factual comparison by a man that had no favorite one.

That being said, I would vote for the P-47 Thunderbolt. The British Tempest had some similar capabilities but was not quite as durable as the P-47 and had a reputation for the empennage breaking off under stress. The T-Bolt could do things that most planes couldn’t. For instance:

1) Fighter Bomber – Ground attack had a bomb load of 2500 lbs and a lot of munitions firepower that worked as well as bombs.
2) One of the fastest propeller driven planes in WWII. The P-47N model could go 467 mph. The big four-bladed paddle props changed the plane considerably.
3) Difficult to shoot down, even with flak. No plane in WWII was more survivable. It had heavy armor around the pilot to project him.
4) Could shoot down anything the Germans had including ME-262, assuming it had the altitude. Before I get lambasted for making that statement, let me explain. The way it could take down ME-262’s was in the tactics. Since it had the best high altitude performance of any plane so nothing could come up and get it. It could accelerate to 700 mph in a controlled dive and pull out. That would quickly overtake the ME-262 running full throttle (540 mph?) in no time. The ME-262 was fragile. It could not withstand hits. Its defense was its speed.
5) 8 “Ma Duces”. The eight 50 cal high velocity, incendiary rounds made it the most destructive aircraft in the air, which could saw a tank in half. Few pilots got the chance to bail out when jumped by a T-Bolt.
6) It could roll out of a bombing run and turn and dominate any fighters sent to “take out the bomber” it.
7) Had the best roll rate of any WWII aircraft.
8) Could evade and disengage any enemy it chose to, simply by diving away. The Germans used this tactic two but could easily be run down by the P-47.
9) Had stall characteristics as good as the P-51
10) Accounts of having two “cylinder jugs” shot off and still flying for over an hour to return to base.
11) Climbing power. When the big props were added to take advantage of the huge engine, it could out climb a Spitfire IX.
12) Nothing could out dive it, not even approach its ability to dive. The fact that it was heavy allowed it superior speed in a dive over any aircraft jet or prop. (7 .5 tons).
13) No other plane had its power. You can do a lot with power. The problem with power is the increased weight from bigger engines. The P-47 used this as an advantage since it was so large a fighter. It could have a much stronger airframe and as stated before could carry the 8 - 50 cals with more ammo.
14) P-47 could do it all, ground support, bomb, strafe, escort bombers, dominate in a dogfight with 109s and 190s, without a significant change in configuration.

The problem main with the P-51 was that it was vulnerable to small arms fire and very fragile. If its cooling system was hit it was on the ground within 15 minutes. Also it was not has powerful as the Double Wasp engine so it could not carry as many 50 cals.

The P-47’s main weakness was the fact that it was not quite as maneuverable as the FW-190 at low altitudes, though some of the pilots that fought in them questioned that. It didn’t have the range of the P-51, but was close enough to escort the bombers across Germany with drop tanks. The tactics of the P-47 were not to have simple dogfights like the Mustangs and the Spits, but rather to out climb and out dive the enemy

Most of the pilots that flew both the P-51 and the P-47, preferred the P-47 because of its survivability. In fact, Zemke’s raiders in the 56th stayed with it throughout the war even when offered upgrades to the P-51’s. The modern A-10 in the USAF is the successor to the T-Bolt and is called the “Thunderbolt II”.


Here are some of its accomplishments:

546,000 combat sorties with a combat loss rate of only 0.7 percent.
132,000 tons of bombs dropped
11,878 Enemy planes destroyed; 1/2 in the air; 1/2 on the ground
160,000 military vehicles destroyed
9,000 enemy locomotives destroyed
More victories than any other American aircraft in W.W.II

[Gnomey]

Added Poll and moved to the war in the air, please take the time to vote

Gnomey