Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

[adamcotton]

Ok, which of all the great fighter 'planes fielded by the combatants of WW2 gets your vote as the "best of the best"? Spifire? Mustang? Me109? Fw190? Zero? And just as importantly - why? It seems to me that a lot of myths have been perpetuated or added to over the years - could the Me 109E really outclimb the Spitfire 1 above 20,000 feet, for example? Could the Spitfire really out-turn any other fighter in the sky? Did the Zero fighter really deserve its fearsome reputation? Were Me109 pilots really worried about pulling the wings of their fighters during pull outs from steep dives? Did the P-47 Thunderbolt really get close to the "sound barrier" - if not actually breaking it- during dives from high altitude? Was the P-38 a pig in close in combat?

Be intersted to learn everyone's opinions...

Cheers. Adam

[adrian roberts]

Adam

There was a thread on this subject on the "War in the Air" section a few months back. I see you're new to this forum, but from your profile you have expertise that we would welcome!

Obviously the answer depends on which point of the war you are talking about. The answer I give below is the answer that I contributed to the previous thread, copied and pasted:

"I can answer with my head or or with my heart.

Answer with my head: the ME262. Technically the best fighter of the war, not only because of the jet engines but also the swept wings. Design influenced both the Sabre and the MiG15. The high loss rate was becuse many of the pilots were inexperienced 19-year-olds, and because the allies had air superioriy and were able to hang round airfields and shoot them down as they landed. Not surprisingly, the Meteor isn't even mentioned above: entirely conventional apart from the engines, it would have been dead meat in Korea.

Answer with my heart: The Spitfire. As an Englishman, its about the legend: the epitome of freedom. More objectively, it was not the best fighter throughout the war, but the latest Mark was probably in the top three or four at any given time, and in the summer of 1940 the Mark 1 was the best in the world, though the margin between it and the ME109E was very small."

An additional comment would be that in mid 1942 no less than the C-in-C of RAF Fighter Command, Sir Sholto Douglas, said in a letter to Lord Beaverbrook that "Currently the best fighter in the world is the Focke-Wulf 190"

I probably ought to qualify the bit about the Meteor: it was certainly used in Korea; if I remember rightly Jock Maitland who runs the Biggin Hill Air Fair flew them in Korea: but I'm not sure how often he encountered Migs

Adrian

[Dac]

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Aug 20 2005, 04:01 PM

I probably ought to qualify the bit about the Meteor: it was certainly used in Korea; if I remember rightly Jock Maitland who runs the Biggin Hill Air Fair flew them in Korea: but I'm not sure how often he encountered Migs

Adrian

Quoted post

The Meteors used in Korea were much more capable than the original WW II variants, being almost 100 mph faster. Still with its' staight wings and large size the Meteor was better suited to the ground attack role, leaving the Migs to the Sabres.

My choice for best WW II fighter is the obvious one, P-51 Mustang. A blend of the best America and Britian had to offer, the P-51 was a war winner. The destruction of much of the Luftwaffe fighter strength in early 1944 was largely due to the introduction of the P-51 in large numbers. Fast, manueverable, and with a range that allowed it to escort the Heavies almost anywhere in Europe, it must have seemed like a nightmare to the German fighter pilots. Georing is said to have declared " The war is lost" when he saw the first P-51s over Berlin.

[adamcotton]

Hi Adrian - nice to make your acquaintance too.

The best fighter aircraft? I would agree that, in 1940, the Spitfire 1 and Me109 were about on a par. It irritates me when, so often, I see historians who should know better claiming the Me109E could outclimb the Spitfire 1 above 20,000 feet. They overlook a number of factors: firstly, by August 1940 virtually all Spitfires had been fitted with constant speed propellers, which conferred a greater climb rate than the hitherto standard variable pitch prop (which admittedly did give the 109 the advantage in the air fighting over Dunkirk). Secondly, like the Hurricane and Defiant, by mid 1940 the Spitfire was using 100 octane fuel (the Luftwaffe used 87 octane throughout the battle) which further improved climb performance. But - and this is the most significant factor- the Me109 generated its best rate of climbat a somewhat lower forward speed than the Spitfire -i.e climbed at a steeper angle - which under certain tactical conditions could create the illusion that the Me109 was outclimbing the Spitfire, even though the latter may well have been gaining height more quickly. As any pilot knows, an aircraft produces its best rate of climb at only one airspeed, and although the speeds for Me109 and Spitfire differed, the resultant climb rates were actually closely comparable. If the 109 enjoyed any advantage in climb rate, it was in the region of the deck to 20,000 feet, largely due to the different characteristics of its supercharger. There is no doubt, however, that the Me109E enjoyed a higher ceiling than the Spitfire 1. This was due to two facts: the german fighter was somewhat lighter than the Spit 1, and its DB engine produced an extra 200hp.

Could the Spitfire out-turn anything else in the sky? Pretty much - with the exception of its stablemate the Hurricane which, though bigger and heavier, had an extra four feet of wingspan and, consequently, a lighter wing loading - the determining factor in turn radius.

Now, what about the FW190? Not for nothing was it dubbed "The Butcher Bird" by its allied adversaries. Aside from its 50mph speed advantage over the contemporary Spitfire V, the key to its supremacy lay in its wickedly fast roll rate, courtesy of its short, stubby wings. However, the FW190's short wings raised the wing loading, which meant it could never out-turn a Spitfire, and it was fundamentally flawed in one other respect which only the passage of time would reveal: it's performance fell off rapidly above 20,000 feet. In 1942, when Sholto Douglas appraised the FW190 as the deadliest fighter in the world, he was correct, since most of the air fighting on the Channel Front was by now now taking place at altitudes of 20,000 feet or below, where the 190 reigned supreme. (It was as though, at some point in late 1941/early 1942, both sides had reached a consensus that 30,000 feet or more was a silly place to have a dogfight - it is interesting to speculate how the Fw190 would have fared in dogfights in the rarerified air of 30,000 feet or more two years previously in the Battle of Britain).
The 190's weakness at altitude would only really be revealed later in the war when the Americans started their heavy bomber raids over Germany and the 190s were found to be incapable of tackling the high flying Mustang or Thunderbolt escort on equal terms. So, just as the RAF had sent Spits after the Me109s and Hurricanes after the bombers in the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe then employed the FW190s as bomber destroyers lower down, while using the superior high altitude performance of the the Me109 to take on the escort fighters.

In the meantime, the boffins went to work on the Spitfire. First off, they clipped the wings of the Spitfire V and cropped the impeller blades of its supercharger, having first fitted a Merlin 50M engine with a negative G carburettor. The resultant Spitfire LFV was a match for the FW190 in all performance respects below 12.000 feet. Then they stuck a Griffon engine in a Spit V airframe to produce the Spit XII,
which was actually both faster and more agile than the 190 below 12,000 feet.
But the FW190's real nemesis, of course, proved to be the Spitfire IX, fitted with the Merlin 60 series engines. At pretty much all altitudes, this marque of Spitfire enjoyed a decided edge over its German counterpart, with the exception of roll rate and accleration.

So, for sheer adaptability and development potential, the Spitfire has to be a prime contender for the best fighter of WW2. And by the time the Spitfire XIV came along, only the new German jets and the long nose FW190D could match or exceed its performance.

The P51 Mustang, of course, was also a brilliant fighter - at least in the offensive, escort role. It had extremely long legs, which made it perfect as a long range escort, and was also very manouverable, though not in the same league as the Spitfire. However, as a defensive interceptor, it would have been handicapped by a relatively slow rate of climb. Its high speed - 40mph faster than a Merlin engined Spitfire - was due to its then revolutionary laminar flow wing (basically, a laminar flow aerofoil keeps the boundary layer air - that in closest contact with the wing surface - continually moving, so reducing form drag). But that same wing produced tricky handling characteristics under certain flight conditions, causing some inexperienced pilots to stall and spin- in close to the ground. The Spitfire's handling, however, was virtually viceless.

The Me262 and Meteor? The Me262s performance advantage over any propeller driven fighter of WW2 is indisputable. But does that mean it should carry off the crown? Not only did it lack manouverability, but its Jumo engines were good for only 10 hours apiece before they had to be scrapped. This was due to a lack of raw materials in their manufacture, principally titanium, - only titanium has the necessary heat resistant qualities that the actual metals used so patently lacked.
However, it was certainly a far more effective war machine than the Gloster Meteor, which it never met in combat. The Korean Meteors were much improved variants of the first Mk1s delivered to 616 Squadron in 1944, and were used by 77 Sqn RAAF in that conflict. They did, in fact, fly combat air controls for a brief period, but everyone realised they lacked the performance for air combat and were thereafter employed exclusively in the ground attack role.

I haven't even touched upon the Thunderbolt, the Zero, the P-38 Lightning or numerous others that could be considered the "best fighter of the war". But, as you will by now have geussed, I am a Spitfire man through and through and hope I have presented a convincing case for my viewpoint - that the Spitfire, though flawed, was nonetheless, through continual development and adaptation, able to stay at the very head of the pack throughout the war.

Anybody think differently?

Adam

[angie999]

I am going to leave out the jets, because they entered service too late on either side to have a decisive influence.

I vote for the P-51 Mustang with the Merlin engine (I would have to check the individual model numbers). Without them, they USAAF got slaughtered over Germany. When they appeared in the long range escort role, the Luftwaffe fighters suffered a strategic defeat, as in "Big Week" in early 1944.

[Gnomey]

From my heart I say the Spitfire, almost all of my reasons for saying are covered above by Adam (adaptablility etc).

Otherwise I would say either the P-51D (Merlin engine) for the great help it was in the allied raids on Germany in 1944/45.

[adrian roberts]

Adam
Great stuff - and you're not even getting paid for this!
One query:

The P51 Mustang, of course, was also a brilliant fighter..... Its high speed - 40mph faster than a Merlin engined Spitfire - was due to its then revolutionary laminar flow wing

What about the theory that the P51's speed was at least partly due to the jet effect from the vortex nozzle shape of the radiator airflow duct - i.e. the radiator was employed to heat the air as it passed through so that it expanded and could be used to provide thrust? This theory was presented in Aeroplane a few years back in an article by the North American executive who originally liaised with the RAF. Can't remember his name but I think I kept the issue so may be able to find it.

Adrian

[bigd]

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Aug 20 2005, 05:01 PM

Adam

There was a thread on this subject on the "War in the Air" section a few months back. I see you're new to this forum, but from your profile you have expertise that we would welcome!

Obviously the answer depends on which point of the war you are talking about. The answer I give below is the answer that I contributed to the previous thread, copied and pasted:

"I can answer with my head or or with my heart.

Answer with my head: the ME262. Technically the best fighter of the war, not only because of the jet engines but also the swept wings. Design influenced both the Sabre and the MiG15. The high loss rate was becuse many of the pilots were inexperienced 19-year-olds, and because the allies had air superioriy and were able to hang round airfields and shoot them down as they landed. Not surprisingly, the Meteor isn't even mentioned above: entirely conventional apart from the engines, it would have been dead meat in Korea.

Answer with my heart: The Spitfire. As an Englishman, its about the legend: the epitome of freedom. More objectively, it was not the best fighter throughout the war, but the latest Mark was probably in the top three or four at any given time, and in the summer of 1940 the Mark 1 was the best in the world, though the margin between it and the ME109E was very small."

An additional comment would be that in mid 1942 no less than the C-in-C of RAF Fighter Command, Sir Sholto Douglas, said in a letter to Lord Beaverbrook that "Currently the best fighter in the world is the Focke-Wulf 190"

I probably ought to qualify the bit about the Meteor: it was certainly used in Korea; if I remember rightly Jock Maitland who runs the Biggin Hill Air Fair flew them in Korea: but I'm not sure how often he encountered Migs

Adrian

Quoted post

if talking about range then the mustang, ground attack thunderbolt, upgrade ability spitfire

[Kiwiwriter]

The plane lodged in my heart...the Spitfire. It was truly the great.

[Dac]

Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 21 2005, 04:21 AM
I haven't even touched upon the Thunderbolt, the Zero, the P-38 Lightning or numerous others that could be considered the "best fighter of the war". But, as you will by now have geussed, I am a Spitfire man through and through and hope I have presented a convincing case for my viewpoint - that the Spitfire, though flawed, was nonetheless, through continual development and adaptation, able to stay at the very head of the pack throughout the war.

Anybody think differently?

Adam

Quoted post

Reginald Mitchells Spitfire was one of the soundest designs of the war. Its only real handicap was lack of range due to the fact it was intended as a point defence weapon. This limited the Spitfires effectiveness later in the war when much of the aerial combat took place deep inside occupied Europe. Otherwise an amazing aircraft, still in production after the end of WW II.

On the handling of the P-51, pilots needed to be very carefull when flying with full tanks as the 90 gallon tank behind the pilot upset the center of gravity when full. Pilots first drained it to 45 gallons before shifting to the drop tanks to regain proper center of gravity. This would have caused problems for the Mustang when used in the intercepter role.