Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

Discussion in 'The War In The Air' started by adamcotton, Aug 20, 2005.

Tags:
?

Best Fighter of WW2?

  1. Supermarine Spitfire

    36.1%
  2. Hawker Hurricane

    14.6%
  3. Hawker Typhoon/Tempest

    5.1%
  4. North American P-51 Mustang

    7.6%
  5. Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

    20.9%
  6. Lockheed P-38 Lightning

    3.2%
  7. Vought F4U Corsair

    0.6%
  8. Focke-Wulf FW-190

    2.5%
  9. Messerschmitt ME-262 Schwalbe

    3.2%
  10. Messerschmitt ME-109

    2.5%
  11. Messerschmitt ME-110

    1.9%
  12. Mitsubishi A6M Zero

    0.6%
  13. Macchi MC-202

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  14. Yakololev Yak-3

    1.3%
  15. Lavochin La-7

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. Other (Please State below)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    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
     
  2. adrian roberts

    adrian roberts Senior Member

    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
     
  3. Dac

    Dac Senior Member

    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
    [post=37872]Quoted post[/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.
     
  4. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    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
     
  5. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    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.
     
  6. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    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.
     
  7. adrian roberts

    adrian roberts Senior Member

    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
     
  8. bigd

    bigd Junior Member

    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
    [post=37872]Quoted post[/post]

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

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

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

    Dac Senior Member

    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
    [post=37877]Quoted post[/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.
     
  11. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    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!
     
  12. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    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.
     
  13. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    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.
     
  14. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    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.
    [post=37966]Quoted post[/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
     
  15. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    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...
     
  16. adrian roberts

    adrian roberts Senior Member

    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
     
  17. Dac

    Dac Senior Member

    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
    [post=38003]Quoted post[/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.
     
  18. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    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...
    [post=38002]Quoted post[/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.
     
  19. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    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...
     
  20. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    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.
     

Share This Page