Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire WWII FIGHTER PLANE...

Speed is an essential component but not the "winner" by a long shot

You know, I was thinking you might chime in.

Once again, you follow your standard MO of adding nothing of value but simply to attack someone without putting your own view out there.

You could have joined in and added something really worthwhile here but you just chose to be an asshole. So, my question is why? Why did you make a conscious decision to just be an asshole instead of bringing your knowledge and experience into the conversation to add something that everyone could benefit from?


Added: Okay, I see you've changed your post from the original comment, so let's get back on track. I really am all ears, so what else makes a good fighter plane and what fighters of WWII possessed those assets that would put them in the lead for "best"?

I'll stick to my [bleep] MO. You say you're no expert then proceed with a declarative statement about speed. So my MO fits your post much better doesn't it?

F-4. very fast, dogshit fighter
F-104: very fast, dogshit fighter
MiG-23, fast, dogshit fighter
MiG-31 VERY fast, dogshit fighter

A good fighter, like the F-14, is a blend of EVERYTHING. The 262 was faster than anything, but it could also TURN fairly well. I agree with Galland on the Mustang, THe FW-190 "long Nose Dora" was a superb fighter as was the Spitfire IX (actually all Spits were) but they lacked the legs. THe Hellcat had the best kill ratio but like the P-51, amassed it's kill ratio after the germans and japs were all but spent. Not a fan of the Mustang, but as a "whole man" concept, my vote goes to it.

One man I knew with a lot of hours flying had a P-40N and he would fly against a man he knew who had a P-51. They would dogfight at 15,000 feet and lower and the P40 always or practically always won. He was talking to a WW2 P-51 combat pilot about it and he said, "Of course, you're fighting the P-40's fight".

Obviously a lot more complicated than simple speed or range or any other single characteristic.

Marks are an important consideration, too.

For example, the Spitfire Mk IA and the Mk XIVe were very different from each other.

My preference is to consider the best WWII fighter aircraft by year; 1939, 1940, etc.

Turn rate
Turn radius
climb rate
range
armament

I'm betting that P-40 took the fight WAY down in order to negate the "bottom" of the circle to the P-51 who could always climb much faster, then come down on the P-40, negating it's turn rate. That said, I don't know enough about those airplanes when it comes to those parameters (turn rate, radiius) etc., but I find it tough to believe the P-40's turning ability was that much better (if at all) than the Mustang's/

Understood, Jorge, but I'm just repeating the info. I've never flown in either type and doubt I'll ever have the chance.

Also, I wouldn't be anxious to stress a 75 year old airframe.

Would have been interesting if these guys had traded aircraft for half of their dogfights.

Yes it would have.

I don't doubt their word for a second. I just wish I knew more about it. Now fast forward to my career life span and those I know pretty well.

After reading thru the thread, I have to wonder, what does each person figure makes their choice "a best fighter"?

What A/C shot down the most enemy planes for the Allies? the Lowly Hurricane...they had the most of them in the early years of the war 39 to 41.. when the enemy's strength was at its greatest... so it flew in the most target rich environment...

For the US, which we supplied many A/C for the early war effort to the British and later the Russians.. example being the old Lowly P 40.. they did a thankless job for the Allies in North Africa and in Russia for the Russians...P 40s were busy, even shooting down 109s and FW 190s in Combat with the Germans...

it had to do with both how well trained and how experienced the Pilots were, and motivated...The Lowly Brewster Buffalo flown by the Finns against the Soviets...the Got them surplus rejected by the US Navy in 1939.. and kept them in service right up until Finland stepped out of the war in summer of 1944.. considered obsolete when they got them... yet the Finns were engaging Spitfires and Hurricanes and shooting them down in numbers, with their lowly Buffalos...and wear keeping them flying with replacement of worn out engines, from down Russian A/C.... early in the war, engines and planes were going to the Russians, that the Soviets copied and starting making American design engines in Russia...it was these motors that the Finns kept the Buffaloes flying, even the reliability of the Russian builts ones was no where as good as the Quality of American built ones..

Quality of Pilot made a big difference in a fighter, which is only as good as it's Pilot....Ilmari Juutilainen ( Good Luck pronouncing that name), Finland's top ace in WW 2...flew the Buffalo and later the ME 109s the Finns got from the Germans.. all rebuilt planes...he shot down 94 Soviet A/C in Finland's two wars with the Russians... the 1939-1940 Winter War, and then when Finland attacked Russian when the Germans did in Operation Barbarrosa...June 1941...not only was he the top Non German Ace of the war with 94 kills... but his even greater claim to fame was that he never came back with a Bullet Hole in his A/C....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilmari_Juutilainen

The Combat life of an A/C was fairly short.. if not shot down or shot up and had to be scrapped for parts, they finally just got worn out, have the crap flown out of them during Combat Ops...

People like to thing of the 262 as the best fighter of the war... once again, the quality of the A/C depends on the quality of the pilot flying it...and Germany was getting low on pilot quality be the time the 262 was finally fielded...Drei Tag Flieger.... Three Day Flyer..
The Attrition was that great....the 262 had engine with max duration of 15 hours.. they were not maneuverable and were sitting ducks when landing or taking off...that is why they used FW 190 Doras, to patrol the fields when the 262s were landing or taking off... the 262's flight duration time was also short....P47s and P 51s had a tough time catching them when in combat... but they were again, sitting ducks when landing and the Allies had air superiority......the Gloster Meteor and the Lockheed F 80 were also coming on line in 1945... so IF the ME 262 would have come on line earlier, the British and the Americans, had planes coming on line that would have challenged them on their own turf....plus the F 80 and the Meteors engines were much more reliable and had a much longer engine service life...

My own personal favorite in the P 47s.. they had the dual role that they did well, in both ground attack and being a fighter.. and they did that better than the Mustang....while the Spitfire did a lot for the British, but by 1944 the Hawker Tempest was coming on line and replacing Spitfires in many Squadrons..for good reason...

While being a Fighter Pilot is consider the most glamourous , my personal favorite, and if I had lived in those times and was able to serve as a pilot, would be in Night Fighters...that was more pilot skill than how great the A/C was...The Beaufighter was mentioned... but also the Mosquito in its roles was a much more versatile A/C than the Spitfire .... the Americans, late to the party as usual, with the Excellent P 61.. and in Germany, the ME 110G night fighters, the JU 88G N/F...the HE 219 Uhu ( Owl)...Great A/C, and with the Germans, they had some excellent pilots... and were shooting down Swarths of British Bombers over Germany every night.. and the RAF was thinking those losses were from Flak...

What makes the best fighters? the Quality of the Pilot, the Availability of them, the Ease of Maintenance, and the Missions they could fly.. versatility....and finally Leadership....Look at what the German's had technology wise, and how they missed opportunities by poor management at upper levels...Compare Hitler running things from his desk, the same way Lyndon Johnson &MacNamara tried to Micro Manage the Vietnam War from the Oval Office.. and the disaster that was...

One has to look at a bigger picture.. a less A/C with Lesser capabilities but Good Management is a lot better than a Great A/C for the Job, but totally mismanaged.. Ala the ME 262, and a host of other German A/C....

The Navy's Management of the There Assets in the Pacific, lead to success of their operations.. it wasn't just the Hellcats, Corsairs etc....if the war had gone on longer in the Pacific, imagine the job the F7F TigerCat and the F8F BearCat could have done... they would have eclipsed the Corsair and HellCat.....but thank God they didn't have to.. because more men would have died in beating Japan....

There are rarely fighters that are so mismatched that they can dart in an out of an engagement. There are a couple of real fighter guys are on the CF and my experience is limited to training command Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) in the TA-4 and Defensive Aerial Combat Maneuvers (DACM) in the Prowler but.....

It's more complex than sheer speed. ACM is all about energy and being able to add and subtract it to move in a 3 dimensional space to get yourself to a weapons engagement. If you have a plane that can add and subtract energy using power and maneuvering you likely have a winner.

Think about many of the ME-262 kills. Down low, around the airfield and unable to accelerate it was a grape to the stalking allied fighters. At altitude and high speed it still could turn as it's excess thrust gave it a lot of options for manuevering egg to fight in the vertical that the allied fighters didn't have at that altitude. It's rarely just a horizontal turn in ACM, it's a slice or pitch and using the egg allows you to maximize that lift vector along with the +/- of energy that gets you to engage (or disengage). At altitude you also have the option of "unloading" the plane to zero g and you gain energy VERY quickly to be able to use to defend yourself with a break turn, get out of a weapon engagement zone or to use that new energy to maneuver in the vertical to get an advantage.

Worked great for Wildcats against Zeros too. Start high, go through formation with superior firepower and energy and get our of range into the vertical while the zeros made horizontal tight turns that really didn't matter as the attack came from above so the angle of the attack just didn't change much.

There are many other things that play into what makes a great fighter these days with sensors and weapons but in WW-II with guns as pretty much the sole air to air weapon having enough fuel and the ability to add and subtract energy was the game changer.

Some light reading at the very basic level since what's taught in basic flight school as BFM really varies little from what was done in WW-II since the basics still apply - CNATRA BFM guide

Seafire; Obviously pilot training is paramount, Erich Hartman's kills were mostly on the Eastern front against ill trained Russian. but one can easily compare airframes WITHOUT the pilot, just in terms of data. And I'll also disagree with you on the 262's turning abilities. It was for sure no Spitfire, but it could turn enough to build on it's most salient strong points, speed, climb and dive rates which NOBODY could touch.

Hatari: did Galland state why he liked the 109 over FW 190? I’m just curious?

I’ve read a lot of the biographies of many of these pilots. Many had tough childhoods which probably helped them grow up much faster than a lot of today’s spoiled snowflakes.

Another hot Soviet fighter was the Yak 3.

Also depends on where you fight. The battle of Britain took place over Britain. The German fighters could only fight for a few minutes before they had to return to the continent to refuel. The British could stay in the fight a lot longer.

I loved Chuck Yeager's story about shooting one down.

There is a series of YouTube vids on Greg's Airplanes that suggest the P-47.Lots of graphs and stats. I highly recommend watching them if you have an interest in WW2 warbirds. Much forgotten is the role of the engines, fuel octane, and the supercharger/turbocharger.

I remember seeing a P-51 at a local airport decades ago, still in original paint and the octane rating was 115/145. Pretty high octane rating required.

About that time surplus P-51's were being sold out of Davis-Monthan AFB, (from the 'graveyard' at $500- $1500 by bid), and I saved up my nickels to try to buy one. The prices kept creeping up and always out of reach. There were surplus Navy planes in the area too, including Corsairs and AD-1 'Spads' which were later used in VN. I don't recall any F6F's, F7F's, or F8F's. There were TBM's and PBY's. AT6's and BT13's came out of Kingman as well as B-17's.

Most of them got melted down for the aluminum and in Kingman the gas was salvaged and paid for the price paid for the B-17's.

Thanks, I really appreciate your informative reply. Lots of good folks here willing to share their experience.