Fastest Plane Of The War

Discussion in 'The War In The Air' started by Kirkyboy2, Nov 21, 2005.

  1. Michal_Dembinski

    Michal_Dembinski Junior Member

    The Americans had excellent world-beating radial engines. But in terms of inlines, there was the Allison (P-38, P-40) and the licence-built Merlin. This is mainly predicated by the fact that US aircraft designers needed engines that were reliable over vast expanses of water; a liquid-cooled engine without liquid means the pilot's in for a dunk and a long paddle home.

    Michal, from Warsaw
     
  2. Mostonian

    Mostonian Member

    The Spad XIII was the fastest aeroplane of The Great War with a top speed of 136 Mph.
    Then in descending order:
    DH4 - 128
    Spad VII - 127
    Nieuport 28 - 122
    SE5a - 122
    Fokker DVII - 120
    Sopwith Camel - 112
    Fokker Dr.1 - 103
     
  3. john robins

    john robins Junior Member

    May I query top speed given for the P-80 ,like early Meteors they were much slower than German jets allthough their engines lasted longer ! German jets used more efficient axial-flow type as opposed to British centrifugal system.
     
  4. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (robby @ Feb 12 2006, 10:09 AM) [post=45689]May I query top speed given for the P-80 ,like early Meteors they were much slower than German jets allthough their engines lasted longer ! German jets used more efficient axial-flow type as opposed to British centrifugal system.
    [/b]
    The P-80A (558 mph) models were slightly faster than the fastest of the 262s; Me262A1 (540mph). Jets in WWII would not make good dogfighters against prop planes. This really didn't become effective until the development of air-to-air missiles and high speed cannons. The reason is speed control. Jet engines are not like piston engines where you can simply rapidly throttle up and down the engines. In a dog fight, you are constantly working the throttle. You don't just set it wide open and steer the plane.

    Jet engines run at extremely high rpms which means if you suddenly close the throttle and then instantly go full throttle it can cause a flameout or even worse blow up the vanes off of the turbines from the pressure of the fuel burn working against he inertia of the engine. The ME-262 engines had only about 12 hours life to them. You would really have to baby that thing just to keep from blowing it. This is why when you are on short final on a commercial jet they begin to rev up the engines in the flare, in case they need to abort the landing execute a missed approach.

    I don't think jets would have ever have been a successful against prop fighters for anything more than hit and run tactics. The maneuverability of the fighter, it's better range and duration, it could simply stalk the air fields and wait for returning jets (which is pretty much what they did). Air-to-air missiles made prop planes obsolete. Jets were more of a psychological factor than they were an effective weapon in WWII.

    Top speed is not everything in fighters. The only thing it does is help you escape the dogfight.

    The Germans were desperate. They had to try something. They put a lot of faith in superweapons. They also strategically applied them poorly. For instance, targeting London with V1s&V2s (what's up with that?). I would have used the ME-262 as a fighter/bomber to slow the ground advances of the Allies and Russians and the V1s to stop the initial invasion on the beaches.
     
  5. adrian roberts

    adrian roberts Senior Member

    </div><div class='quotemain'>I would have used the ME-262 as a fighter/bomber to slow the ground advances of the Allies and Russians and the V1s to stop the initial invasion on the beaches.[/b]

    Jimbo
    Didn't Hitler slow down the development of the 262 by insisting that it be developed as a bomber, and incurred the disagreement of the Luftwaffe generals for this? This has always been cited as one of Hitler's mistakes - could he have been right, then? But the usefulness of the 262 as a fighter was not so much in dogfights as attacking bomber formations, which is why the generals wanted it.

    As for V1s being used to attack the landing beaches - the reason they were launched against London was that they were so inaccurate that it was all they could do to hit a city; if aimed at a beach they would have either gone into the sea or landed on the Panzers.

    Adrian
     
  6. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (adrian roberts @ Feb 12 2006, 06:38 PM) [post=45721]</div><div class='quotemain'>I would have used the ME-262 as a fighter/bomber to slow the ground advances of the Allies and Russians and the V1s to stop the initial invasion on the beaches.[/b]

    Jimbo
    Didn't Hitler slow down the development of the 262 by insisting that it be developed as a bomber, and incurred the disagreement of the Luftwaffe generals for this? This has always been cited as one of Hitler's mistakes - could he have been right, then? But the usefulness of the 262 as a fighter was not so much in dogfights as attacking bomber formations, which is why the generals wanted it.

    As for V1s being used to attack the landing beaches - the reason they were launched against London was that they were so inaccurate that it was all they could do to hit a city; if aimed at a beach they would have either gone into the sea or landed on the Panzers.

    Adrian
    [/b] Hi Adrian,
    I think you mistundertood the statement. The slowing down would have been the allied and Russian army advances if they had a Fighter/Bomber which was killing them. There was no more critical role of air craft (save getting air supremacy) than the ground attack role. For instance, in the Falaise Pocket, between 60-80% of all vehicles were destroyed by air attacks alone.

    The issue of the V1, I got from Bradley's biography where he said had Hitler have used the V1s on the beaches, they would have destroyed the entire offensive before it started. The are more accurate than you think. You can't target a building but you can target a large area and they had 1000s of them. It was Brad's greatest fear during the invasion.

    Jim
     
  7. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    Say hello to my little friend(Use Scarface accent)....

    The Me 163 Komet

    620mph
     
  8. john robins

    john robins Junior Member

    May I labour the point, Lockeed's P80 like the Meteor 1 had a top speed of just over 400mph-less than contempary spitfires and Mustangs.The P80 verstion discussed earlier would not have been around until long after the war had finished.The conclusion to the original question has to be the Me-163. It might be more interesting to debate the relative merits of the last piston-engined fighters.
     
  9. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (robby @ Feb 13 2006, 11:48 AM) [post=45771]May I labour the point, Lockeed's P80 like the Meteor 1 had a top speed of just over 400mph-less than contempary spitfires and Mustangs.The P80 verstion discussed earlier would not have been around until long after the war had finished.The conclusion to the original question has to be the Me-163. It might be more interesting to debate the relative merits of the last piston-engined fighters.
    [/b]
    robby, you must be thinking of the Bell P-63 which was a dog jet like the Meteor. The US had two jets developed in WWII. Here are the stats on the http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/p80.htm.

    The comet had no combat capability, just a quick burn and glide back down to the earth, assuming you didn't burn to death before you took off. It was used to chase bombers and get one quick shot at them and then glide back down and hope there are no fighters waiting back at the base and that the pilot wouldn't break his back on landing (which many of them did since it didn't have wheels). The jets were impressive looking and caused people to worry but they were not really effective. The P80 was brought over to Italy just to alleviate fears by showing that there was a jet that was more than a match for the 262. It was a moral booster. It really was too late to see any real action. It never met opposition on its sorties.
     
  10. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    James,


    The question was.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>Which plane was the fastest of the Great war...
    can be Allied or Axis[/b]

    Now I know I pressed a wrong button and asked about the Battle of Grunwald....But I think the lad was talking about the fastest plane of WWII.

    Which is the ME-163

    Second, I checked the name on my post and it doesn't say Exxley.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>The comet had no combat capability[/b]

    Um...

    2× 30 mm MK 108 cannons

    And sometimes...Jagdfaust (battery of six 50mm mortars)

    The Komets shot down 16 bombers during the war.

    Source: Jagdgeschwader 400 history


    </div><div class='quotemain'>just a quick burn and glide back down to the earth, assuming you didn't burn to death before you took off. It was used to chase bombers and get one quick shot at them and then glide back down[/b]

    Agreed

    And not as operationally sucessfull as the Me-262
     
  11. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    When I said no combat capability I was not talking about "strike capability". It couldn't possibly dog fight. It had a constant burn engine (no throttle) which ran until it burned out. It was about like Spaceship I. Not really a rocket ship but just a fuel burning glider. I don't doubt the comet shot down a handful of bombers. If you want to include rockets, why not say the fastest plane was the V2?
     
  12. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    [
     
  13. Erich

    Erich Senior Member

    JG 400 shot down 12 a/c possibly; interviews with Rudi Opitz Gruppenkommandeur of II./JG 400. the rocket fighter was crap, and the P-80 was not a match for the me 262 newer versions coming out in spring of 45.

    we will never know so comparisons should not be made between the two
     
  14. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Erich @ Feb 14 2006, 12:05 AM) [post=45833]JG 400 shot down 12 a/c possibly; interviews with Rudi Opitz Gruppenkommandeur of II./JG 400. the rocket fighter was crap, and the P-80 was not a match for the me 262 newer versions coming out in spring of 45.

    we will never know so comparisons should not be made between the two
    [/b]
    How do you know? Would the ME-262 have been a match for later versions of the P-80, or maybe the F-86 Sabre? Where do you stop?

    More important than the aircraft is the pilots. Where is Germany going to get pilots? I mean, heck, a P-47D ran down and shot down Adolph Galland and put him out of the war in his souped up ME-262 and he was Germany's leading ace on the ETO. Air speed helps you pursue and escape but it doesn't help you fight.
     
  15. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 03:40 PM) [post=45877](Erich @ Feb 14 2006, 12:05 AM) [post=45833]JG 400 shot down 12 a/c possibly; interviews with Rudi Opitz Gruppenkommandeur of II./JG 400. the rocket fighter was crap, and the P-80 was not a match for the me 262 newer versions coming out in spring of 45.

    we will never know so comparisons should not be made between the two
    [/b]

    More important than the aircraft is the pilots. Where is Germany going to get pilots? I mean, heck, a P-47D ran down and shot down Adolph Galland and put him out of the war in his souped up ME-262 and he was Germany's leading ace on the ETO. Air speed helps you pursue and escape but it doesn't help you fight.
    [/b]
    Galland, with 104 kills, was hardly the German leading ace on the ETO, even after the death of Marseille.

    Heinrich "Heinz" or "Pritzl" Bär with his 125 ETO kills was.
     
  16. john robins

    john robins Junior Member

    Once again the P80 version available in early 1945 had a General Electric engine with less than 2000lb of thrust and would have been no match for a Me-262 or even a Fw190.
     
  17. adrian roberts

    adrian roberts Senior Member

    Jim

    </div><div class='quotemain'>The issue of the V1, I got from Bradley's biography where he said had Hitler have used the V1s on the beaches, they would have destroyed the entire offensive before it started. The are more accurate than you think. You can't target a building but you can target a large area and they had 1000s of them. It was Brad's greatest fear during the invasion.[/b]

    Bradley may well have said this but the V1 [Fieseler Fi103 to be precise] was probably not his area of expertise. I attach a map showing the distribution of V1 hits over SE England. This doesn’t look like the accuracy required for a tactical battlefield weapon to me.

    View attachment 1531

    Of course it depends what date we are talking about. In the first few days after D-day, it would have been hopeless trying to hit the strip of land a few miles wide where the allies were, without also hitting the German defenders. But in by August, yes there would have been a big enough Allied-held area to hit. But how much difference would it have made? The attached maps make it look as though a huge area could be devastated, but the dots are grossly over-scale. The V1s caused over 6000 deaths, (about three for every five V1s fired), but they did not in fact bring SE England to a halt or seriously damage morale. If used against the invasion forces, they would have caused casualties and disrupted operations but I doubt they would have been decisive.

    As to the ME262 being used for ground attack: I accept your assertions as to the decisive effect of the P47s and Typhoons. But for the Germans, would the ME262 have been ideal as a tank-buster? Wouldn’t the FW190 or Henschel 129 have been better suited? They would have been more economical to produce and maintain. The 262 would have been too fast and unmanoeuverable to acquire targets easily. It’s relatively slow acceleration and the lack of manoeuvrability would have made it vulnerable to defending fighters. Post WW2 experience has shown that a slower but agile type, providing it has protective armour, is better as a tank-buster than a fast high-tech type - hence the A10, AH64 etc. Why the Germans didn’t make more use of ground-attack planes of whatever type on the NW front is another issue - allied air superiority; lack of pilots; production disrupted by bombing; lack of appreciation of their usefulness by the Staff, etc.

    On a personal note, going back to the V1, I live in the SE London suburbs, and every few streets you can still see a row of older houses, then a gap with a couple of post-WW2 houses, then more old houses - these gaps would be where a V1 or V2 landed. At least two pubs near here were hit with 20 or more fatalities. My mother and mother-in-law remember the putt-putt of the V1 “doodle-bug” engines, and knew that you were alright if the engine kept going but if there was suddenly silence, it was going to land near you or on you.

    Adrian
     
  18. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (robby @ Feb 14 2006, 12:02 PM) [post=45899]Once again the P80 version available in early 1945 had a General Electric engine with less than 2000lb of thrust and would have been no match for a Me-262 or even a Fw190.
    [/b]
    In 1943 it was even worse.


    (adrian roberts @ Feb 14 2006, 06:52 PM) [post=45937]Jim

    </div><div class='quotemain'>The issue of the V1, I got from Bradley's biography where he said had Hitler have used the V1s on the beaches, they would have destroyed the entire offensive before it started. The are more accurate than you think. You can't target a building but you can target a large area and they had 1000s of them. It was Brad's greatest fear during the invasion.[/b]

    Bradley may well have said this but the V1 [Fieseler Fi103 to be precise] was probably not his area of expertise. I attach a map showing the distribution of V1 hits over SE England. This doesn’t look like the accuracy required for a tactical battlefield weapon to me.

    View attachment 1531

    Of course it depends what date we are talking about. In the first few days after D-day, it would have been hopeless trying to hit the strip of land a few miles wide where the allies were, without also hitting the German defenders. But in by August, yes there would have been a big enough Allied-held area to hit. But how much difference would it have made? The attached maps make it look as though a huge area could be devastated, but the dots are grossly over-scale. The V1s caused over 6000 deaths, (about three for every five V1s fired), but they did not in fact bring SE England to a halt or seriously damage morale. If used against the invasion forces, they would have caused casualties and disrupted operations but I doubt they would have been decisive.

    As to the ME262 being used for ground attack: I accept your assertions as to the decisive effect of the P47s and Typhoons. But for the Germans, would the ME262 have been ideal as a tank-buster? Wouldn’t the FW190 or Henschel 129 have been better suited? They would have been more economical to produce and maintain. The 262 would have been too fast and unmanoeuverable to acquire targets easily. It’s relatively slow acceleration and the lack of manoeuvrability would have made it vulnerable to defending fighters. Post WW2 experience has shown that a slower but agile type, providing it has protective armour, is better as a tank-buster than a fast high-tech type - hence the A10, AH64 etc. Why the Germans didn’t make more use of ground-attack planes of whatever type on the NW front is another issue - allied air superiority; lack of pilots; production disrupted by bombing; lack of appreciation of their usefulness by the Staff, etc.

    On a personal note, going back to the V1, I live in the SE London suburbs, and every few streets you can still see a row of older houses, then a gap with a couple of post-WW2 houses, then more old houses - these gaps would be where a V1 or V2 landed. At least two pubs near here were hit with 20 or more fatalities. My mother and mother-in-law remember the putt-putt of the V1 “doodle-bug” engines, and knew that you were alright if the engine kept going but if there was suddenly silence, it was going to land near you or on you.

    Adrian
    [/b] I don't really know why Bradley said what he did, but he did say it in retrospect so maybe he knew something about them that we don't, like their short range accuracy is very good (like shooting them from 2-5 miles away).

    Yeah, the V1s had to suck listening to them. I really feel for the folks in London. But they certainly maintained their dignity. That had to hairlip Hitler.

    The reason I would use the ME-262 for a tactical role rather than the FW-190s is that the 262 can't manuever to dogfight but they could dive in and out of the target area before AAA could get a good fix. They needed something to halt the advance of the ground forces. Once the Ruhr was gone, it was all she wrote.

    No matter what they did though it was probably pointless. Their army was in a shambles at the time and they had run out of capable pilots.
     
  19. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    Yes, But the fastest plane in WWII was the ME-163 Komet.
     
  20. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Yes, But the fastest plane in WWII was the ME-163 Komet.
    You have to qualify that. If you are going to Britain from its base in Germany, then it is the slowest.
     

Share This Page