Best fighter of WWII? (oldtimers poll)

[mikeus_maximus]

I know there are "seasoned" ex-military types on this board. I'd like your and anyone else's opinion on this topic. Every year of WWII saw improvements in aircraft development and performance-- so much so that what was state of the art at the beginning of the war, such as the Me 109 and Supermarine Spitfire, would have been death traps by the end, 6 years later.

For years I'd heard the P-51 Mustang was the ultimate WWII fighter. Then I read a quote from a former FockWulfe 190 pilot who said Mustangs were frail-- one bullet in the aluminum cowling and they went down. No one can deny their service record, though.

Other sources say the FW 190D was the best plane to come out of WWII. It was built on the same concept as the P-51-- take a good fighter, shoehorn in a huge bomber engine, and now you've got a great fighter. Except in this case it was a radial engine, which could lose one or two cyl. and keep on ticking (as opposed to the Mustang's inline engine).

Some say the Japanese "Frank" fighter produced near the end of the war was tops. Other have said the Russian YAK3 was.

Recently I heard that the F8F Bearcat was undoubtedly the best plane. Grumman took apart a captured FW 190 and made it better. The Bearcat was a plane deisgned from scratch around a huge radial engine, rather than vice versa. It was smaller, faster and more agile than any of the above. It had a production speed of 455 mph, a rate of climb twice that of a Mustang, and a ceiling almost as high. Is was delviered to the Navy in the Pacific theatre, but the war ended before it saw action, or it would have made its own legend. A few years later a modifed version set the airspeed record for piston planes at 528+ mph.

It gets my vote. Anyone else have an opinion?

[rmlew]

The P-47N would have been better than P-51Ds. Inline engines were not designed for ground support roles. However, you can flug a p-47 off a carrier. The Corsairs provided support for marines and as light attack were invaluable.

[GonzoGOP]

There is actually a web page dedicated to biplane aces of World War II. http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se Also there was a pilot from the Philippines who got a kill with a Boeing P-26! Not a biplane, but actually slower than some of the Polikarpov I-153.

For worst all round I would have to go with the Fiat G.50. So slow it couldn't get out of its own way, poorly armed, no self sealing tanks, not terribly maneuverable, and just butt ugly. And it was introduced during the war so they can't claim it was obsolete like the biplanes.

[mad_as_he$$]

P-51D no other debate needed. BTW it was picked OVER all fighters by a poll of experts in 2005.

[mad_as_he$$]

In 1978 I met Pappy Boyington at an airshow in Smyrna TN and proceeded to get commode hugging drunk. of course his favorite was the Corsair.

[alfa6]

Not only was the heater a problem, but the engines of the P-38 had a very short life span in the ETO. I forget the exact amount but in the ball park of about a 1/3rd of the life that they should have had.

The P-38 that primarily saw use in the ETO were the F thru H models. These had a complicated radiator system that ran thru the wings as I recall. It wasn't until the advent of the J-25 block models of the -38 with a new radiator layout that the engine problems were solved in the ETO. By that time though all but one group had converted to either Mustangs or Thunderbolts. The Pictures posted earlier were of "L" model P-38s, IIRC

Here is a couple of early P-38s...

A pic of the P-38 Glacier Girl which is an "F" model Lightning

One other note the P-38 was the only American fighter to be in production from 1939 to 1945.

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[Skooz]

The Lightning excelled in all theaters except for Europe. There have been many theories as to why the P-38 came up short in the ETO. The two most popular that I recall seeing had to do with the British avgas and the fact that in the ETO it was flat out cold.

The reason the P-38 did well in the PTO and not so well in the ETO is the difference in fighter tactics between the two theaters.

In the pacific, the rule was NEVER to dogfight a Zero. They were too maneuverable and nimble and the American would lose every time. The tactic was to use the US plane's superior speed and fire power and zoom straight at the Japanese plane guns blazing, the fly right by them.

Things were different in Europe. German and allied planes were more evenly matched as far as maneuverability. speed and fire power were concerned. That meant that dogfights were common and the preferred method of destroying the enemy.

The P-38 was a fine fighter, but it was no dogfighter and was better suited to the hit and run warfare of the PTO.

[alfa6]

I like the Spitfire for many of those same reasons.

But what really recommended the Spit to me was it’s growth. From a basic point defense interceptor at the beginning of WW-II the Spitfire was able to grow to meet the various threats that arose.

For example the Spitfire Mk Vb was the RAF’s fighter when the Germans introduced the FW-190 in 1941. The -190 was clearly superior to the Mk VBb but the wizards at Supermarine came up with the Mk IX to restore the ability of the RAF fighters to compete on a more or less playing field.

What the heck one more pic of the Spitfire.

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[Skooz]

If a more beautiful airplane has ever been built, I haven’t seen it.

The Brits always built handsome planes.

[Eye of Unk]

Ok its another day, well maybe for you but I am in Alaska and I tend to stay up late,so I am about to hit the sack, I am interested in that Mosquito bomber, it must have literally been under the radar to me, I will have to check it out some more.

[SunkenCiv]

I don’t know. Some designs were built in great numbers, but not because they were the best, merely because they were good enough. That was generally done with Allied designs, and we simply out-built the Axis powers. That goes for tank designs as well.

The use of divebombers by the Germans helped maintain that huge combat frontier with the USSR; the best of the supposedly passe’ Stuka pilots destroyed over 500 Russky tanks from the air. Fighters played a role in the air war, and in ground support, but in WWII in Europe the decisive stuff was all on the ground.

What German designs got built and in what number, and how they were deployed, tended to get pretty garbled by Hitler and some of his yes-men. Having him in charge of the enemy forces in Europe was our greatest advantage — but then again, we wouldn’t have had to fight that war if he hadn’t risen to power.

Gosh, it’s almost as if I’m making some kind of parallel with current events or something.

[mikeus_maximus]

You’re absolutely correct! That was the rest of his quote— one bullet through the aluminum cowling that hit a cooling line.

[alfa6]

what if the Zero had self sealing tanks?

The Mitsubishi A6M2 Risien, code named by the Allies Zeke but better known as "The Zero" showed what could be done with a naval fighter. Fast, about 360mph, very maneuverable and with outstanding range the Zero was a world beater when first encountered by the Allies in the opening days of WW-II.

So why do I think it is overated. Several factors. First the Zero had no armor or self sealing fuel tanks. This was a decision by the Japanese which believed in a light weight maneuverable plane.

Also the aerilons were largely ineffective at higher speeds and the Zero could not dive very well. Again a function of the lightweight construction.

The Zero also had a poor armament suite, a pair of 7.7mm machine guns which were inferior to the British .303 MGs and a pair of 20mm cannons which had a slow rate of fire and poor ballistics as well.

Note that once the US forces and I am not slighting any body else here but it was the US forces that bore the brunt of the fight against the Japanese gained experience in fighting the Zeros that the Zeros begin to go down in droves.

The P-40 and F4F wildcat were clearly on paper inferior aircraft to the Zero yet the Hawks and Wildcats more than held there own until the Hellcats and Corsairs came on line in 1943.

The American fighters while less maneuverable than the Zero were much more ruggedly constructed with armor plate for the pilot and self-sealing fuel tanks. Also the battery of either 4 or 6 .50 caliber MGs gave the American fighters a very lethal punch against the lighter construction of the Japanese aircraft. A few Zero pics, eh:-)

Well gotta run and take care of business, have a great day

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[mikeus_maximus]

The Bearcat was never going to be pretty enough for widespread accolades.

The Zero wasn't pretty either but gets plenty of acclaim due its performance. The Bearcat looked ungainly on the ground with its 12' prop. But in air it was plenty sleek, and the bubble canopy would have had pilots singing its praises.

[alfa6]

Yet the P-38 performed well in North Africa and in Italy. The Italians had great respect for the P-38 and the Luftwaffe pilots in the Med theater were not fond of it either.

No there was something in the ETO that limited the effectiveness of the P-38. I suspect that the British av-gas may have been a large part of the problem in the use of the P-38 in the ETO.

With the addition of the maneuvering flaps the P-38 could almost match most any single engine fighter in single air to air combat.

Not trying to take anything away from the Lightning as it is one of my favorite aircraft.

Tactics is a valid point, it was the use of the high speed dive and zoom climb that enabled the P-40s and F4Fs to outfight the Zeros in the PTO. So why not use the same tactics in the ETO

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[bert]

.....If a more beautiful airplane has ever been built, I haven’t seen it......

Have a look... N4973k bump

[alfa6]

Ya had to mention the Mosquito :-)

Later

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[alfa6]

Ping a ding, interesting comments etc here

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[mikeus_maximus]

The Spit looked like it was sculpted by a master artist. Quite possibly the most beautiful prop-driven aircraft ever.

Yes it was. The Brits were poetic designers (the series I e-type jag sits in the NY Museum of Modern Art and is considered by many the most perfect car design ever- not a bad angle anywhere.) The beautiful rounded wings of the Sptifire, however, actually created drag and held down performance. Once the Yanks showed them how to square off the wings, it was a better plane. :)

[Tallguy]

Yet the P-38 performed well in North Africa and in Italy. The Italians had great respect for the P-38 and the Luftwaffe pilots in the Med theater were not fond of it either.

I came across a critique of the P-38 that suggested that the problems that the P-38 had in Northern Europe were related to where the combat took place (at high altitudes defending the bomber stream). Because the P-38 had problems with compressibility, this limited its effectiveness in a steep dive. Once the Luftwaffe pilots in their Me-109's and FW-190's picked up on this they'd just break off by diving away steeply.

In the Pacific this was not a problem because air combat tended to take place at lower altitudes so there were fewer opportunities for Zeros to dive away & escape. Eventually the P-38's speed in level flight would overhaul them no matter what.

I imagine that North Africa was a similar deal as the Pacific Theater since P-40's were still pretty effective in that theater as well.

[Tallguy]

“The use of divebombers by the Germans helped maintain that huge combat frontier with the USSR; the best of the supposedly passe’ Stuka pilots destroyed over 500 Russky tanks from the air.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel

Hans-Ulrich Rudel, an ace Stuka pilot, was personally credited with over 500 destroyed Soviet tanks.

I once met a tool & die maker who had a painting of a pair of Me-109G “Gustav’s” taking off under battle conditions on his office wall. I was startled to hear that he flew them against the Russians. His Gustav had the 30mm cannon firing through the prop spinner. Must have been pretty tough on Soviet tanks, too.