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
oldbutnotwise       3/25/2013 3:26:04 PM
 
Their original opposition was because it would cause a 50% reduction in cannon fire power. 
 
did you read the book? because that's not what Mike Spick says, I am beginning to think you  haven't actually read any of Mike Spicks books
 
Yes, the guns were installed in two tight groups giving concentrated firepower in two "Beams" not one spot at one range. Note that later Spits fixed this by installing the cannon and HMG, if fitted close together and as close to the CL as possible to clear the prop. 
You do realise that it was the installation of the rear tanks that meant that the air bottles needed relocating these were located into the out wing gun bays,
why did they not install a 303 next to the 20mm if that was such a good location? there was a bay (as the second 20mm was rarely fitted) yet it was only when they lost the outer 2 guns did they decide to fit HMGs in the inner bays, so once again you look at what happened and come to the completely wrong conclusion 
As to the start of WW2 I will take the dates I was taught and you can lump it
 

 

So mid-war, the P-38/47/51s EACH scored more planes down than the Fw-190D and all the late model Spits combined!
yet either would see off the P38/47/51 so score is not the idea measurement is it
Yes, score is the ultimate measure of sucess!
but your problem is that you look at apples and oranges and think you can come up with pears, you cannot compare the kills scored by experienced pilots in 109s against inferior Russian planes with untrained pilots against kills against a pier fighter with extremely experienced fighter, an attempt to do so is so flawed as to be a joke, you can only compare fighters when they perform similar roles against similar targets, but that is something that you refused to do, either by choice (very dishonest) or by inability (going on your previous posts this is very likely) 
 There can be no other valid measure than the ability and accomplishment of shooting down enemy aircraft. All other ideas are rubbish,
fine if you are comparing like with like otherwise the figures are meaningless (which they are in reality)
 para-phrasing a famous WW-I Ace. 
Lets see, only the Me-262 ever shot down a single enemy aircraft! That makes the rest non-starters, don't you think?
no, it means you need to define your question better It was not a question, but a reply to your statement that the jets, colectively, or one of many, must have been the best. I simply narrowed the field.
no you fit the field to your result this shows a lack of understanding of scientific method, you gather the information and make a conclusion not make a conclusion and then fit the information to it

 I guess it comes down to wether you want it all, or are willing to settle for less. IE, the Ta-152H has it all. It is the worlds best single engined fighter plane above 33,000'!
it was about 25mph faster than a Spit MkXIV at 28k and 40mph faster at 33k but was 40mph SLOWER at 10k and those speeds required  MW 50 which is regarded as adding about 50mph  throughout the range, it also turned and rolled a lot slower than a mkXIV and was slower in the dive and climb and that's against a MkXIV
 
It is competitive with the rest between 20-33K' and slightly less capable than some other taylored to lower altitudes like the Clipped, Clapped and Cropped Spits and low altitude Fw-190s.
 
you are aware (but probably not ) the Clipped and Cropped Spits were ALL MkVs and were a temp fix to match the FW190A's  when the MKIX entered service they didn't have the cropped impeller blades in the supercharger and it was found that the clipped wings gave virtually no advantages on the MkIX a plane that was superior to the fw190 at low level and superior to the 109 at altitude, let alone the later marks
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/25/2013 4:04:53 PM
1. The Me-109 shot down more enemy AC in combat that the next three types combined.
as pointed out many time by many people as you are not comparing like with like then this is a false statement, as you could replace the Me 109 with just about any front line fighter of the period and got the same result              
How do you say that? This is silly!    

so what your saying is that only your opinion is valid and that someone has an alternative then its silly ?,       
    No. I say it is silly to make that particular suppossition because the entire war is the best possible population of examples to determine the statistical truth of any statement regarding the War.
but its not as the variation in missions, pilot skills, oppositions, relative numbers and rate of contact with the enemy makes comparing the figures impossible, but you have shown you have a childish belief in this stupid assertion (and across many posts) you need to read up on statically analysis with special care on the subject of sampling 

 
No speed and pointability may be important but NOT to the exclusion of other criteria, the faster combat fighter of ww2 was the me262 yet was it the best fighter, no it suffered in to many areas to be handed this monica      
  Note that I never said it was exclusive, but if one were to take all of the various criteria for a fighter plane, speed is easily the single most important of them,
it was important but not without a minimum of the other areas, if you lacked in other areas then just having speed is not enough unless you can control the engagement and that is not something you could plan on in advance
in that it alone determines wether the plane is sucessful or a failure.
no it doesn't speed alone is not enough to define this, if you think it is then you are so deluded as to be pointless to try and correct
All other criteria are insignificant when comp'd to speed. By-planes can out turn any mono-plane, but they can not compete.
 
 The Zero can easily out turn the Spitfire, or it's historical nemisis the F-4, but is a looser comp's to either of them, IF they are used corectly!
  actually no, it can out turn at lower speed but as speed increase the spit outturns the zero, it the old case of fighting within your fighter best performance envelope, if you can do this you are likely to win but it required the ability to force the engagement in your favour, the Gloster Gladiator did exactly this against superior fighters in Both Norway and the Med, the Brewster Buffalo also managed it for Finland  if you control how the battle is fought  you can win even if your aircraft is a lot slower
3. Counter, or Contra rotating props are the single largest positive factor in pointability!
 
  The Spitfire by Ken Delve for one source just because its sat on the arm of my chair
Thank you for this. I'll have to read it. Can you refer me to a page number, I have many other projects in the pot and would sincerely like a hint. Again thanks. 
No you need to read the book not just a page otherwise you will fail to understand context which maybe one of you big problems, you get a fact but haven't got its context and without that you cannot understand
 
 
The main requirement was to eliminate torque  during take off of carrier planes. That was the original spec that was written.
Again you are wrong all the first spits to get contra props were land fighters,
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/25/2013 4:06:29 PM
Kit Carson who fought them or a bunch of internet fools?

Seems OBVIOUS which to choose. 



We have seen your assertions. These are unfounded fantasy not even worthy of opinion.

Where are your facts?






I quoted them from the link you posted! Did you read the entire thread? The rebuttals are most interesting. In spite of all of the 109's defects, it was a great plane. The vast majority of the 107 thought so! I decline to their judgement! After all, they are the 107 who did do it in spades and I am only an amature WSA! Again, I site his remarks; "Hydraulic powered controls are a must". The late model P-38 was the only plane in WW-II to have them. (Ailerons!) Speed crops up over and over again in his article and the rebuttals. He even goes through what he would do to make the 109 an easy 400+ MPH plane! Read Kelly Johnson's Bio and the developement of the F-104. Then there are his comments about controlability at speed! Note that all of the planes mentioned had great handling at lower, to mid speeds. It was only when they were going much faster that controlability became a problem. If speed was not so important, why did he make such a big deal out of it? Even to stating what he would do to make the 109 much faster!

If I were to sort and filter his comments into one or two big ideas, they would be the importance of speed and the ability to control the plane at those higher speeds, IE: POINTABILITY!


 

 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/25/2013 4:42:06 PM
I quoted them from the link you posted! Did you read the entire thread? The rebuttals are most interesting. In spite of all of the 109's defects, it was a great plane.
 It was to begin with but by the Gs it was outclassed, it was liked by the Luftwaffen pilots as it had a greater flight envelope than the Fw190s but being the best of the two in this regard didn't make it the match for allied aircraft of the time, those quotes are cherry picked to support 109 fanboys, if you look at all the reports from pilots who flew botht he 109gs and equivalent spits p51 etc. then you get a completely different view and I will go with people like Eric "Winkle" Brown
 
The vast majority of the 107 thought so! I decline to their judgement!
you decline? or do you mean defer?
as the majority of those 107 never flew anything but 109s (only a few got fight hours in both 109 and 190s) and virtually no time in any allied fighters, even those that did, did so in crashed and recovered aircraft often with different octane fuel and oil to what they were designed to run with,
After all, they are the 107 who did do it in spades and I am only an amature WSA! Again, I site his remarks; "Hydraulic powered controls are a must". The late model P-38 was the only plane in WW-II to have them.
(Ailerons!) 
the P38 was designed without them so fitting them was in reaction to flaws in the basic aircraft not an indication of the best fighter is it, and the fact that it was pretty unsuccessful in the ETO and MTO
 
Speed crops up over and over again in his article and the rebuttals. He even goes through what he would do to make the 109 an easy 400+ MPH plane!
but all you need to regain the Spits advantage is one of the know injections methods like mw50 and you are close to 470 mph obtained by the ta152
 
 Read Kelly Johnson's Bio and the developement of the F-104. Then there are his comments about controlability at speed! Note that all of the planes mentioned had great handling at lower, to mid speeds. It was only when they were going much faster that controlability became a problem. If speed was not so important, why did he make such a big deal out of it? Even to stating what he would do to make the 109 much faster!    
then why did they go to so much trouble fitting power controls to the P38? as adding weight wouldn't help increase the speed would it? you seem to be arguing against yourself here
 
If I were to sort and filter his comments into one or two big ideas, they would be the importance of speed and the ability to control the plane at those higher speeds, IE: POINTABILITY!    
ahem speed AND control not speed on its own
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 4:43:18 PM

Kit Carson who fought them or a bunch of internet fools?
How about the opinions of the vast majority of the 107 Germans who all shot down eight or more times as many planes as the good Colonel (Kit) Carson? ( In no way does this denigrate his service, just his oppinion, which is disputed by so many better qualified people?)
Seems OBVIOUS which to choose. 
Obviously!


 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/25/2013 4:59:06 PM
Kit Carson who fought them or a bunch of internet fools?
How about the opinions of the vast majority of the 107 Germans who all shot down eight or more times as many planes as the good Colonel (Kit) Carson? ( In no way does this denigrate his service, just his oppinion, which is disputed by so many better qualified people?)
Seems OBVIOUS which to choose. 
Obviously!
 
and exactly how many of those 107 were dead before the Gs arrived? how many were dead before the last generation of fighter saw service, how many got to try those other aircraft how many scored those victories against Spits and P51s rather than untrained pilots in badly made Migs,laggs and I16s and il2s ?
 
and maybe you should read what Rall said about the P51 and Late model Spitfires as compared to the 109s
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 5:24:24 PM

but your problem is that you look at apples and oranges and think you can come up with pears, you cannot compare the kills scored by experienced pilots in 109s against inferior Russian planes with untrained pilots against kills against a pier fighter with extremely experienced fighter, an attempt to do so is so flawed as to be a joke, you can only compare fighters when they perform similar roles against similar targets, but that is something that you refused to do, either by choice or by inability
  But your problem is to think all of these planes are NOT Apples, Oranges and Pears! You think that the Ruskies were not as good as the Brits and Americans, name the top twenty Allied Aces of WW-II! Or is it Top Thirty Allied Aces of WW-II? I can't remember, but they were all Russians! Heck, they even had TWO WOMEN who beat out >90% of all American and British pilots with 12 and 11 Victories! So if it turns out that the Ruskies were not such slouches, then any asertion that Pilots who ran up big scores against them are some how less qualified than anyone in the RAF who only ran up 38 or less Victories is flawed! Then there is the bunch of >100 German Aces who did that ALL against the Americans and British! Do you then elevate their oppinions above those with less prolific scores? Right! The Germans had 107 Pilots who all shot down over 100 planes. The vast majority of them thought the Me-109 was the best! I'll take their word on that topic before yours, Or Col. Carson's!

There can be no other valid measure than the ability and accomplishment of shooting down enemy aircraft. All other ideas are rubbish,
fine if you are comparing like with like otherwise the figures are meaningless (which they are in reality)
Since ALL of the Fighter planes of WW-II were much more alike than different, that must make my asertion completely valid!

no you fit the field to your result this shows a lack of understanding of scientific method, you gather the information and make a conclusion not make a conclusion and then fit the information to it
You can not have it both ways! Either you t6ake the field as a whole, or you narrow it down, but you can not do both as you tried to do above and be taken serriously!
I guess it comes down to wether you want it all, or are willing to settle for less. IE, the Ta-152H has it all. It is the worlds best single engined fighter plane above 33,000'!

it was about 25mph faster than a Spit MkXIV at 28k Which model? and 40mph faster at 33k Again, which model? but was 40mph SLOWER at 10k Again, which model? and those speeds required MW 50 Wrong at least half the time! The Ta-152H used MW-50 at lower altitudes and NO2 at altitudes above 10Km. which is regarded as adding about 50mph  throughout the range, it also turned and rolled a lot slower than a mkXIV and was slower in the dive and climb and that's against a MkXIV Given the Spitfires notoriously slow rate of roll, not completely fixed with the metal covered control surfaces, I doubt this very much! You see, the problem was not with the material the surfaces were covered with, but the flexibility of the wing which let the aileron at the back twist the wing to change the angle of attack on the leading edge to counter the effect of the aileron's force! The Spitfires as a group were never as quick as their comp's at high speed. Never, none of them ever! Fw's on the other hand were famous for their rates of roll.
   
       the MKIX entered service they didn't have the cropped impeller blades in the supercharger and it was found that the clipped wings gave virtually no advantages on the MkIX a plane that was superior to the fw190 at low level and superior to the 109 at altitude, let alone the later marks
1. Why did they make Mk-IXs with clipped wings at all then?
2. We were talking about rate of roll. Which of the two, the FW-190 and MK-XIV had the best rate of roll? 
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 5:41:46 PM
It was to begin with but by the Gs it was outclassed, it was liked by the Luftwaffen pilots as it had a greater flight envelope than the Fw190s but being the best of the two in this regard didn't make it the match for allied aircraft of the time, those quotes are cherry picked to support 109 fanboys, if you look at all the reports from pilots who flew botht he 109gs and equivalent spits p51 etc. then you get a completely different view and I will go with people like Eric "Winkle" Brown
The vast majority of the 107 thought so! I decline to their judgement!

as the majority of those 107 never flew anything but 109s This makes my point all by it self! 
 
After all, they are the 107 who did do it in spades and I am only an amature WSA! Again, I site his remarks; "Hydraulic powered controls are a must". The late model P-38 was the only plane in WW-II to have them. (Ailerons that is!) 

the P38 was designed without them As were ALL other planes of the time! 

Speed crops up over and over again in his article and the rebuttals. He even goes through what he would do to make the 109 an easy 400+ MPH plane!
but all you need to regain the Spits advantage is one of the know injections methods like mw50 and you are close to 470 mph obtained by the ta152
Yes, this might be true, but The Germans did it, the Americans experimanted with it and the British ignored it.

then why did they go to so much trouble fitting power controls to the P38? as adding weight wouldn't help increase the speed would it? you seem to be arguing against yourself here
  Not at all. Speed is related to weight by the square root of the weight differance. But rate of roll which became one of the very best at high speed goes to pointability and maneuverability which no other plane in WW-II can match at speeds over 360 MPH! NONE!
If I were to sort and filter his comments into one or two big ideas, they would be the importance of speed and the ability to control the plane at those higher speeds, IE: POINTABILITY!    
ahem speed AND control not speed on its own
  OK, but if you had to choose one of the two to have at the expence of the other, Which would you take? The ability to escape from or run down the enemy, or the ability to roll the plane quicker, but not have the speed to escape or chase the enemy down? RIGHT!

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 5:50:56 PM

how many were dead before the last generation of fighter saw service, how many got to try those other aircraft how many scored those victories against Spits and P51s rather than untrained pilots in badly made Migs,laggs and I16s and il2s ?
This is a very common misconception! IE, that the Ruskies were some how not as good as the Americans and British. Statistics show that the exact oposite was the truth. The Ruskies had the top 20-30 Allied Aces, all with 41 or more Victories. The Top Americans had 40 and 38, or 39 Kills and the Top Brit had 38, or 39, again, I can not at this time remember who was in second place between the second best American and the top Brit. The Ruskies shot down more Germans than the RAF. This is not in dispute by the RAF, or any other rational person in the UK. So, who were the weak nellies, the Russians or the RAF? One last bpoint, the Germansd had more than twenty Aces who shot down over 100 planes each in the west exclusively! 



 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/25/2013 8:47:32 PM
All of those 107 German aces were defeated.
 
The Russians flew their pilots into the ground as the Germans.
 
The P-38...
 
Difficult plane to fly until power assist was added (P-38J 1943), which the FW-190 had from the start. 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics