Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
sentinel28a       10/15/2009 4:00:04 AM
Actually, V2, P-47s were flown off of carriers at Saipan (just flown off, not landed)...and it probably wouldn't have taken much to convert one for carrier ops.  It would've been tough to bring aboard, but no worse than a Corsair.  You could even argue that a Hellcat was kind of a navalized Jug.
 
The only thing I didn't like about the P-38 was that nasty blind spot behind and to the rear, the compressibility problem, and it's somewhat sluggish turning radius.  Beautiful airplane, though.  (I've got a P-38 model I need to finish, but I can't make up my mind to do Robin Olds or Dick Bong.)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    What about Kurt Tank's FW 190?   10/15/2009 4:18:27 AM
Was a better designed plane than the BF-109 and introduced advanced "power-egg" automatic aspirator control engine concepts that the Allies copied with their late model Corsairs and Bearcats as well as the Tempests and Typhoons.
 
The FW-190 never gets the respect it deserves.
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       10/15/2009 9:06:15 AM
Is it really true more pilots died in training flying the Me-109 than in actual combat due to its narrow landing gear?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Groundloops and Graveyard Spirals...   10/15/2009 9:24:34 PM
Is it really true more pilots died in training flying the Me-109 than in actual combat due to its narrow landing gear?
 
People don't appreciate the difficulties involved with flying WWII high performance airplanes. Propeller driven aircraft all have one interesting characteristic. They all want to roll over and spiral into a crash! There are three reasons for this and they are related to that big spinning set of props out front. First, the props are essentially airfoils (wings) spinning to create thrust (lift) that pull the aircraft through the air. When an aircraft is at a high angle of attack (climbing) the descending part of the propeller arc is biting more of the air than the ascending blades are. This creates a significant differential between the two (sides) and create a definite push to the left (as if you were standing on your right foot and not your left). Second, the air that is driven off of the propellers corkscrews around the airframe and wings, like a coiled python, twisting the aircraft to the left. Third, the engine and blades form essentially a spinning top. The engine and blades are a "gyro". That acts just like the toys you used to play with when you were a kid. When you deflect it it is driven 90 degrees off of the direction of the push. In other words, it pushes the nose to the.....left. Because of this, if I were to take a P-51 Mustang up to altitude and allow it to slow down to just above stall speed, then push the throttle to the stops the airplane would roll over onto it's back, stall, and tumble straight down. Nearly out of control. My flight controls wouldn't solve the problem because there wouldn't be enough air flowing over the wings to fight the combined energy generated by that beautiful Merlin engine. I'd need allot of altitude to recover from that manuver. These principals apply to all of those aircraft (except the British aircraft would be opposite, of course, because their blades turn in the opposite direction. It's not enough that they drive on the wrong side of the road!).
 
The graveyard spiral is a stall just like I described above in the landing pattern, where you don't have enough altitude to recover, and a groundloop is where you tumble an aircraft on landing for the same basic reasons. All airforces lost more men and equipment to these causes than combat.
 
The Bf-109 was particularly sensitive because their landing gear track were the narrowest of
all of the aircraft we have discussed here and after they redesigned it (with a 40% increase in power) it was about as stable as a bucket of nitro-G on a stagecoach.
 
Bf-109 pilots just might have been the bravest of the war.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       10/16/2009 6:22:10 AM
Thanks Rocky.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/16/2009 3:23:06 PM
It got even worse on the Avia S.199, after the Czechs rammed a Jumo engine into a Bf-109G airframe.  The torque was so bad that it was more dangerous to its pilots than the enemy.  The Israelis bought them only because they were that desperate.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       10/16/2009 7:46:30 PM
I rate the Spitfire and the Mustang equal first.
The Spitfire was the only WW2 fighter to begin the war as a leading edge type and end it in the same position. Supermarine just had to keep upgrading engines and armament as better equipment became available to keep it up with the pack, which is an extraordinary testament to the design of the airframe. The Me-109 achieved this until 1943 but then began to lag. The Spit was also very versitile, being useful in the fighter, interceptor, ground attack, recon and naval fighter roles. The only limitation was its short range, but given that it was only ever designed as an air defence and a short-range tactical fighter, roles which it did very well, it is wrong headed to judge it on that basis.  
 
If you had an airforce equipped with Mustangs you basically didn't need any other single seat fighter, because it could do every role in that class well. There were other types that could match its versatility and range, notably the P-38 and the F4U, but they couldn't do it at as low a price so it terms of bang for your buck the Mustang wins. It was even successfully tested as a carrier aircraft but it wasn't ever required to undertake this role.
 
Quote    Reply

Beryoza       10/16/2009 9:09:03 PM

It got even worse on the Avia S.199, after the Czechs rammed a Jumo engine into a Bf-109G airframe.  The torque was so bad that it was more dangerous to its pilots than the enemy.  The Israelis bought them only because they were that desperate.

Didn't the mule have poor synchronization for its guns? I distinctly recall reading about incidents where Israeli pilots shot their own airscrews off...the fact that they actually managed to score kills, against Spitfires too, is testament to their skill and determination.
Also, going on my previous post, I'd say the German Bf-109s evolved from a pure fighter into more of an interceptor towards the end of the war, but a late model Kara would have been a headache to any other Allied aircraft. If the pilot kept his energy state high he was more or less untouchable. By that stage I'll agree that the Fw-190D was a much better fighter, but the Bf-109K was still highly competitive, being very fast, having excellent accelleration, and an outstanding rate of climb. Roll wasn't that bad, either, but turning performance was poor, especially sustained turn. The K also had a very nasty sting, with its MK-108 being able to destroy any fighter with one or two hits (although the low muzzle velocity made it more suitable for use against bombers or Sturmoviks).
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Corsiar & Jug, v. Mustang...   10/17/2009 11:05:32 AM

There really is no comparison.  The Corsair was first flown in 1940 and was in production till 1952.  The F4U-4 was faster with a much better rate of climb than the P-51D.  It was great air to air as well as air ground and only got better in that role through Korea; moreover, it was versatile enough to fly from land bases as well as large and small carriers.  After WWII the Thompson trophy was awarded 4 times for piston engine aircraft- the Corsair won twice.

 

Corsair aside I do have a soft spot for the P-47.  Colonel Huber Zemke was the only man to command P-38, P-47, and P-51 fighter groups in the ETO and while he considered the P-51 the best air to air fighter of the three below 25,000 ft he preferred the P-47 for it's ruggedness, firepower, and better high altitude performance.  Obviously the Jug was the superior ground attack and thus better "all around" fighter.


 

For honorable mention I'd note the FW190.  Certainly not short range fighters like the Spitfire or 109 neither of which were great "all around" aircraft.   Great pilots make mediocre aircraft look better than they are- the Bf109 did not exactly age well by late war.




I would have to read Zemke's comments in context. It is my understanding that the Merlin could more comfortably operate above 30,000 feet because Stanley Hooker's incredible turbo charging system made the Merlin the best power plant of WWII above 25,000 feet. Also, the P-51's laminar flow design, having a thicker chord, was also more effective above 25,000 feet than the Jug's more conventional shape. I know for a time the Jug was restricted to air to air combat while escorting bombers to above 18,000 feet because it's power was so much better and wasn't agile enough for a turning fight down low with a Focke Wulfe (it also may have been to prevent the fighters from leaving the bomber stream). Robert Johnson talks about these missions in his book Thunderbolt. A personal memoir of his experiences.
 
I ask if the competing aircraft could do the Mustang's job. The Jug couldn't, the Spitfire Couldn't, the P-40 couldn't, the P-38 couldn't do it quite as well, and certainly neither the FW-190 or the Bf-109 could do it. Now the F4U Corsair is a candidate that probably could act as a long range escort aircraft because it had about a one thousand mile range that could be extended with big drop tanks. So yes I think the Corsair could perform the Mustang's mission but at a much greater expense. It cost about $130,000.00 each v. the Mustang's about $50,000.00 each. If you have ever seen a Mustang being put together it is a much simpler system to build and maintain than the Corsair was ( I have seen both of them with their skirts stripped at Chino's Planes of Fame museum back when I was a younger lad flying in Southern California).
 
The last item many people complain about is the Mustang's vulnerability to ground fire. It's cooling system being exposed on it's belly to fire from the ground. The Corsair had similar problems with it's oil coolers which were similarly located in the leading edge of it's wings. In fact most Corsairs brought down by ground fire were lost because those oil coolers were punctured. The effect was similar to the Mustang's cooling system being hit with the pilot having a couple of minutes of power to get him out of the area where he was working before the engine siezed up and he either bailed out or bellied in.
 
In the final analysis, I still like the P-51 as WWII's best fighter.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Let's not forget the Russians.   10/17/2009 1:37:39 PM
La-7, Mig-3, and Yak-9 each were very good aircraft.
 
Then there is Italy with what I believe us the overlooked Macchi Mc-205.

 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics