What were the very best of the WWII fighter planes put in the air by any country or in either theatre of operations? A couple coworkers were having discussion about Zero vs. Messerschmitt vs. P51 and Corsair, ect. It was an interesting discussion and after reading the Spitfire thread I became curious what the opinions of the knowledgeable Fire crew might be?
P-51 was later as was Corsair. They were absolutely better planes.
Better German comparison would be Fw 190. An excellent machine.
The Japanese never really fielded any other fighters in enough numbers to be competitive.
It’s interesting to note that the Supermarine Spitfire was competitive all through the war.
I agree on many points. Especially reference the Japanese and the Zero. They shot their wad early on that one. The lack of self sealing tanks and the unwillingness to adapt cost them.
But the P-47 was a real brawler. It was much bigger and heavier than most fighter planes of the era but it was still very fast. Those who flew it long enough to learn tactics which took advantage of its strengths became very effective.
The story of the 56th Fighter Group is interesting.
I think the P51 and the Corsair as they were still used going into the Korean War. However, the Messerschmitt 109 was still being used into the 1950's by Israel and some other nations. The Spitfire was better than the 109, even though it used the same engine as the P51, the P51 airframe made it better for speed and long range.
You could also say the Japanese Zero was the best at the beginning of the war in the Pacific.
Then you could say the ME-262 jet was the best toward the end of the war in Germany.
But for shear numbers that were produced, and being better than the existing rivals, the P51 and the Corsair. Just MHO.
I had an uncle who flew dive bombers in WWII in the Pacific for the Marines. Bombed islands being taken by marines across the Pacific. Had another uncle who was a tail gunner in a B-17 on bombing runs into Germany. He got the flu one time when he was to make a bombing run, and had a replacement. The replacement was killed. My father was a mechanic in the 3rd army keeping up with Patton. He had his best friends face blown on in the Battle of the Bulge. He said he was in Czechoslovakia when the war ended facing Russians. I wish I had spent more time asking them to tell war stories. Dad wouldn't watch a war movie and would go outside and smoke cigarettes if one was on.
My grandfather was in WWI but was stationed in various places in the US because he had flat feet. One time he had to take about 20 horses from Auburn University vet school to Ft. Benning, Ga, about 30 miles. My mother said they lived in Auburn in the country at that time, and my grandfather left early one morning riding one horse leading all the others. He delivered them, and they gave him a train ticket back to Auburn. He got home that same night. Today you can drive it in 30-45 minutes one way. My mother said she was born in a farmhouse on Donahue St across from where the football stadium is now. House is long gone, but my mother is still alive and is 88. She tells stories of growing up in the Depression and WWII.
I think the P51 and the Corsair as they were still used going into the Korean War. However, the Messerschmitt 109 was still being used into the 1950's by Israel and some other nations. The Spitfire was better than the 109, even though it used the same engine as the P51, the P51 airframe made it better for speed and long range.
You could also say the Japanese Zero was the best at the beginning of the war in the Pacific.
Then you could say the ME-262 jet was the best toward the end of the war in Germany.
But for shear numbers that were produced, and being better than the existing rivals, the P51 and the Corsair. Just MHO.
I had an uncle who flew dive bombers in WWII in the Pacific for the Marines. Bombed islands being taken by marines across the Pacific. Had another uncle who was a tail gunner in a B-17 on bombing runs into Germany. He got the flu one time when he was to make a bombing run, and had a replacement. The replacement was killed. My father was a mechanic in the 3rd army keeping up with Patton. He had his best friends face blown on in the Battle of the Bulge. He said he was in Czechoslovakia when the war ended facing Russians. I wish I had spent more time asking them to tell war stories. Dad wouldn't watch a war movie and would go outside and smoke cigarettes if one was on.
My grandfather was in WWI but was stationed in various places in the US because he had flat feet. One time he had to take about 20 horses from Auburn University vet school to Ft. Benning, Ga, about 30 miles. My mother said they lived in Auburn in the country at that time, and my grandfather left early one morning riding one horse leading all the others. He delivered them, and they gave him a train ticket back to Auburn. He got home that same night. Today you can drive it in 30-45 minutes one way. My mother said she was born in a farmhouse on Donahue St across from where the football stadium is now. House is long gone, but my mother is still alive and is 88. She tells stories of growing up in the Depression and WWII.
Hellcat looked like the Wildcat, but was a far superior plane. Japanese pilots had little to fear from the Wildcat, but got an unpleasant surprise if they made the mistake of engaging the Hellcat.
Japan dominated the skies early in the Pacific war. Later on, not so much.
My own favorite is the Fw 190, an efficiently elegant combination of form and function, they never did get it to perform well up high tho until they went with a whole different powerplant at the end of the war. Heavily armored versions excelled in the ground attack role on the Russian Front, they even hung a torpedo underneath them at one point for use against shipping.
The Japanese lost a lot of veteran pilots at the Battle of Midway. They never recovered. Our production and training capability totally out classed them.
I think you have to look by theater and time frame in the war. Technology moved so fast that comparing a 1941 aircraft and a 1945 aircraft are apples to oranges. The Zero in 1941 was dominant in the pacific, but it was fighting Buffalos and P40s with superior tactics. The Thach Weave and Chennaults hit and run tactics blunted the edge somewhat. The Hellcat and Corsair were game changers, as was the loss of a good chunk of the best Japanese pilots at Midway and Rabaul. The Lightning was particularly suited to the Pacific as well. The Japanese never really recovered, but had a good plane at the end of the war in the N1K1, but they had run out of pilots. In the Mediterranean, The Spitfire evened the odds when it started arriving in numbers in 42. Prior to that, the 109 was the best in theater, but ran into a numbers problem as resources dwindled. We’ve covered the ETO pretty well. However, in 42/early 43, the FW 190 was the better plane until the Spitfire IX showed up. No one mentions the Russian planes too often, but starting with the LA 5FN, the Germans started having a hard time, and the LA7 and 9 ended it. In all cases, the number of trained pilots made a huge difference. Adolf Galland once said if he could get a new pilot through three missions, his chances of survival were considerably improved, but few made it. Many of the lopsided kill ratios were achieved through superior numbers of well trained pilots with better tactics against half trained pilots in inferior aircraft. I’m thinking Hellcat/Zero, 109/I16/MiG 3, Mustang/109. The 262 could have been a game changer if it had been used correctly, but when it was, it was too little, too late.
If I had to pick the biggest game changer, though, I’d pick the Mustang. It allowed the bombing campaign to continue in Europe/Med, and challenged the Luftwaffe in its own skies. In addition, it had the legs to be effective in the Pacific.
My grandfather was in WWI but was stationed in various places in the US because he had flat feet. One time he had to take about 20 horses from Auburn University vet school to Ft. Benning, Ga, about 30 miles. My mother said they lived in Auburn in the country at that time, and my grandfather left early one morning riding one horse leading all the others. He delivered them, and they gave him a train ticket back to Auburn. He got home that same night. Today you can drive it in 30-45 minutes one way. My mother said she was born in a farmhouse on Donahue St across from where the football stadium is now. House is long gone, but my mother is still alive and is 88. She tells stories of growing up in the Depression and WWII.
I know you got away from fighter planes, but I enjoyed the digression. As an Auburn graduate (72), I can only imagine what the campus looked like when your mother was born. I'll be thinking of her the next time I go to Jordan-Hare for a game....even though it looks like it'll be next year!
The Japanese lost a lot of veteran pilots at the Battle of Midway. They never recovered. Our production and training capability totally out classed them.
Yep, and once the Allied pilots learned not to play up to the Zero’s strengths (maneuverability and climb) but to exploit its weaknesses (diving speed and the fact it’s controls became much heavier at higher speeds) the vaunted superiority evaporated.
But the P-47 was a real brawler. It was much bigger and heavier than most fighter planes of the era but it was still very fast. Those who flew it long enough to learn tactics which took advantage of its strengths became very effective.
The story of the 56th Fighter Group is interesting.
I got to ask Adolf Galland just that question, in person at his house in Germany. Since he was Gerneral of the Luftwaffe Fighter wing, and commander of the first operational jet fighter squadron, and had over 100 air to air kills including the first with air to air rockets, that should qualfy him as an authority.
- Me 109 his obvious favorite
- Spitfire for lower altitude dogfighting. Could outturn the 109 and at lower altitudes attacking the 109 used as bomber escorts the speed advantage of the 109 was negated
- P-51 as long range fighter escort because of range - "flying gas can"
- "Never had any personal combat against P-38, but not nearly as maneuverable in dogfight as Spit, 109, P-51. They had one chance to ambush one of these other planes and then they were the hunted. Devistating in North Africa for air to ground"
- Me-262 was a completely different machine, superior to anything once airborne. Short range and 15 hour engine life along with frequent flameouts were issues and cost him many pilots.
There you go, from a man that that not only was there, was in charge!
But the P-47 was a real brawler. It was much bigger and heavier than most fighter planes of the era but it was still very fast. Those who flew it long enough to learn tactics which took advantage of its strengths became very effective.
When I was in Jr. High school, my best friends’ father had been a WW2 fighter pilot. Both theaters, multiple kills. Flew just about everything I ask him what the best plane was, he said the P-47, no question. Why ? He said it gave you the best chance of coming back alive, for two reasons. It had the best armor, a heavy steel plate behind the seat that stopped bullets, and because of its weight, it could out dive anything, a sure fire escape tactic if you got in trouble.
P-51 was later as was Corsair. They were absolutely better planes.
Better German comparison would be Fw 190. An excellent machine.
The Japanese never really fielded any other fighters in enough numbers to be competitive.
It’s interesting to note that the Supermarine Spitfire was competitive all through the war.
Galland didn't like the 190. Said while it had speed, it was crude in comparison to the 109 and not as maneuverable. Big radial engine upfront hurt aerodynamics and visibility. His words
The Me-109 and the Spitfires in service at the end of the war were so different from the ones that started the war that they we’re essentially different airplanes. A little less so with the 109 but it was still pretty drastic. They both started out the war with single blade wooden propellers and engines of less than 1000 hp. By the end of the war some Spitfire versions had 2,000 hp and were over 100 mph faster than the prototypes. They were both designs that flew around 1936 and by 1945 were still, in the hands of a good pilot capable of going toe to toe with anything any other country could get into the air in significant numbers.
The Japs had lots of good designs capable of pretty good performance but they lacked the industrial capacity and the raw materials to produce as many as they needed and those that they did often had issues caused not by design but by shoddy production. Plus, the Japanese method of training pilots was so insanely difficult, that once their supply of pilots trained before the war ran out, they had no hope of replacing them with anything approaching the same quality and by the end of the war we’re throwing kids out there who could barely get off the ground. You likely could have thrown those Japanese kids in new Mustangs and Corsairs and the Americans in Japanese planes and the results would have been largely the same.
Pilot ability (natural and trained) makes a big difference. After a Zero was recovered in Alaska and repaired, Yeager and another experienced pilot had a contest - I don't remember what the American plane was.
Then they swapped planes.
Guess who won both times....
At least one Japanese general credited this captured plane with making a big difference in the Pacific, once it was studied and its characteristics analyzed up close and personal. Of course, that could just be a loser's alibi.
My personal favorite is the F4U. That twin radial engine made it the king of the prop planes.
I talked with a B24 waistgunner years ago. He said the ME262 was the most fearsome thing to ever fly in the war. He said all the bomber crews were scared [bleep] when they saw them. They were so much faster than anything else in that era that they were extremely hard to shoot down. Good thing they were such a late entry in the war and few were ever fielded.
The Japanese lost a lot of veteran pilots at the Battle of Midway. They never recovered. Our production and training capability totally out classed them.
Yep, and once the Allied pilots learned not to play up to the Zero’s strengths (maneuverability and climb) but to exploit its weaknesses (diving speed and the fact it’s controls became much heavier at higher speeds) the vaunted superiority evaporated.
Also when they got the Zero out of the Aleutian Islands and found the weakness of the carbs they could exploit it by changing their tactics.
Well, the ME-109 had a V-12 with direct fuel-injection, supercharged, 4 valves-per-cylinder - features that are valued right now in a car 75 years later.
My favorite American plane is the Corsair, with an honorable mention going to the P-40, a plane that enabled us to take the fight to the Axis early in the war when we didn't have much else to fight with. Though outclasses, it did a good job in the hands of a good pilot.
My favorite British plane, and all around favorite is the Spitfire. Just the name alone should be enough, but the performance throughout the war was very well documented. Honorable mention goes to the Hurricane, because it was the plane that did the majority of the fighting in the 1939-41 time period, before there were sufficient numbers of Spitfires to become a factor. Though outclassed by the ME-109, it managed to hold it's own and buy time for England.
From a perspective of a plane built for nothing but being good in a dogfight, the ME-109 might have been the best of all. It was in the early years anyway, even managing to pretty well hold it's own against the Spitfire, until the later years. There is little doubt in my mind that IF the ME-262 had been brought into service earlier, and in enough numbers, it could have been a game changer. I don't believe it would have ultimately affected the outcome of the war, but it would have certainly prolonged it.
I'll take the P-47! Get one round through the cooler of a P-51 and you had two options; within 5 minutes get it on the ground or bail out! The P-47 would come home with cylinders shot off! Only reason P-51 was lauded because it had fuel capacity to make Berlin and back! Later in war...so did the P-47!
The Hellcat looked sort of fat and ugly (like a certain former first lady) and the Corsair looked neat. But corsairs were hard to land on carriers so they were mostly used from islands by the Marines.
My namesake flew P47s for the 56th Fighter Group. He was killed on August 17, 1943, when 60 B17s were also lost, after taking out two ME110s. P47s shot down more Germans than P51s.
The motto of the 56th FG was "Cave Tonitrum," beware the Thunderbolt.
I'll take the P-47! Get one round through the cooler of a P-51 and you had two options; within 5 minutes get it on the ground or bail out! The P-47 would come home with cylinders shot off! Only reason P-51 was lauded because it had fuel capacity to make Berlin and back! Later in war...so did the P-47!
And had the USAF kept the P-47 instead of the P-51 we would have lost a whole lot less airman doing ground attack in Korea.
Looking at the pluses and minuses of the various planes and ignoring subjective favorites (I like the Hellcat and Jug), it looks like the ME-262 was "the Best Fighter".
I''m no expert in dogfighting but from what I've read, given sufficiently skilled pilots and the firepower to get the job done, speed is the winner above pretty much all else. You can dart in and take your shot then outrun your opponent, get set up and dart in for another pass. As the war developed the major advance in aircraft was more speed, that plus range. The final marks of the Spitfire had such a huge engine and propeller in the quest for speed that it became hard to fly.
Turning dogfights end up low and slow which is where maneuverability and tactics really come into play. Different roll rates right or left due to engine torque can be taken advantage of either on the attack or to get someone off of your tail, or like a P-47 out dive your opponent to get out of danger - speed once again - although that wouldn't work as well at 1000 feet as it would at 15,000. Rate of climb can get you back above your opponent to make a diving pass at them, again a form of outracing the enemy.
Again, not an expert so those of you that have actually trained in these things, does this sound about right or not?
Obviously the best tactic is to spot the enemy before they spot you, you can get set up and shoot them down before they even know you're there. From what I understand Charles Yeager had phenomenal eyesight, IIRC he could spot enemy planes miles and miles away.
Looking at the pluses and minuses of the various planes and ignoring subjective favorites (I like the Hellcat and Jug), it looks like the ME-262 was "the Best Fighter".
I''m no expert in dogfighting but from what I've read, given sufficiently skilled pilots and the firepower to get the job done, speed is the winner above pretty much all else . .
Speed is an essential component but not the "winner" by a long shot
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.
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/
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".
Would have been interesting if these guys had traded aircraft for half of their dogfights.
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....
I''m no expert in dogfighting but from what I've read, given sufficiently skilled pilots and the firepower to get the job done, speed is the winner above pretty much all else. You can dart in and take your shot then outrun your opponent, get set up and dart in for another pass.
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.
I got to ask Adolf Galland just that question, in person at his house in Germany. Since he was Gerneral of the Luftwaffe Fighter wing, and commander of the first operational jet fighter squadron, and had over 100 air to air kills including the first with air to air rockets, that should qualfy him as an authority.
- Me 109 his obvious favorite
- Spitfire for lower altitude dogfighting. Could outturn the 109 and at lower altitudes attacking the 109 used as bomber escorts the speed advantage of the 109 was negated
- P-51 as long range fighter escort because of range - "flying gas can"
- "Never had any personal combat against P-38, but not nearly as maneuverable in dogfight as Spit, 109, P-51. They had one chance to ambush one of these other planes and then they were the hunted. Devistating in North Africa for air to ground"
- Me-262 was a completely different machine, superior to anything once airborne. Short range and 15 hour engine life along with frequent flameouts were issues and cost him many pilots.
There you go, from a man that that not only was there, was in charge!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I''m no expert in dogfighting but from what I've read, given sufficiently skilled pilots and the firepower to get the job done, speed is the winner above pretty much all else. You can dart in and take your shot then outrun your opponent, get set up and dart in for another pass.
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
Thanks, I really appreciate your informative reply. Lots of good folks here willing to share their experience.
In one of Greg's vid, he took on the question of range. It too is worth watching. I have a quad, it doesn't matter how good the fuel economy is, it just matters how big the gas tank is.
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.
Jorge,
no question you're experience trumps mine severely...I didn't make the grade to be accepted into Pilot training due to my eyesight..my "experience" if you can call it that, is strictly academic... ( a lot of reading over 55 or so years, since I was about 10 years old...) do not think, that I think little of the 262....but with the state of affairs in Germany and the developments in the USA, I believe the Allies would have still come up with a "game changer" themselves over the 262.... F 84 and F86 where already on the drawing board to follow...if the F 80 hadn't cut the mustard...
Even if the 262 had all the maneuverability under the sun, Germany was short well trained pilots to apply it to its full potential... hence my assessment of in the long run it didn't matter.. it was used mainly against bombers.. so it didn't have to be that maneuverable.. it just needed that to get away and dodge a sky full of allied fighters....and then it had to hope to get home to a field that didn't have other allied fighters lurking around their home field... I have several times, that the German's lost more 262 on the ground, than they lost in the air...only about a 1000 of them made it into service.. another "potential' handicap of a 262 was its armament... yeah hit had very hard hitting 30 mm cannons.. but the A/C only carried 100 rpg for the lower two cannons and 125 for the upper two each...it ran out of ammo faster than it ran out of fuel...
When I worked at the Smithsonian in High School, I had an ID card that allowed me into Silver Hill MD any time I desired to go out there.. that was a WW 2 logistic base that was given over the Smithsonian after the war ended...I always called it their garage.. they have all the planes brought back from Germany to test after the War.... I have sat in the cockpit of the ME 262 B they had out there.. the two seated night fighter version... even if I thought the A/C was crap, after sitting in the cockpit of one, you'd think it was one of the coolest things under the sun....they also had a DO 335 out there, that I've been in that cockpit also.. that was a pretty cool plane also if that would have come on line in numbers...also heavily armed...stepping up to two engines was the quickest answer to where engines had been pushed to their maximum potential.. hence it was moving to the jet engines..
and then technology was maximizing that by the mid 50s... the Golden Age of Aviation..
But I go back to Management and Motivation or Espre de Corps of the pilots and how well they were trained... when you compare Naval Aviation in the Pacific, Vs the Army Air Corps Aviation in Europe, its no real contest..
compare the use of the Douglas SBD vs the Army use of the A 24s....the Navy used it to very good effect, despite its short comings...while Army use of theirs was a disaster.. that has been evaluated as the management of the use of it by the Navy in the Pacific and their superior training of Naval Pilots along with a higher morale and Espre de Corps of their pilots...
same thing with the S2B vs the A25s... most of the Army's A25 sat on airfields and just rotten in the Sun.... But the Navy pilot put the "Beast, Second Class" to good use, despite its short comings...
I am an Army Guy, but I concede the Navy has had better trained pilots from the first days of Military Aviation...its just a fact...
In one of Greg's vid, he took on the question of range. It too is worth watching. I have a quad, it doesn't matter how good the fuel economy is, it just matters how big the gas tank is.
Read a little on the P 47 N....and what they called its 'Wet Wing".....
They'd load those things so heavy, it wasn't unusual for one or two to crash into the ocean on take off after we had captured Iwo and Saipan... for a newly arrived pilot...
Also on long escort missions P 51 was so overloaded with fuel, it was said they had minimal maneuverability until they burned off the fuel tank behind the pilot's seat.. 85 gallons or so...
the 56th FG was the last P 47 unit in the 8th Air Force.. right thru the war... at times they were loading them with a 150 gallon center line mounted fuel tank, and two 75 gallon tanks.. one under each wing.. plus internal fuel... for just ferry range.. they would load three of the 150 gallon external fuel tanks/ drop tanks...
When I worked at the Smithsonian in High School, I had an ID card that allowed me into Silver Hill MD any time I desired to go out there.. that was a WW 2 logistic base that was given over the Smithsonian after the war ended...I always called it their garage..
Garber/Silver hill was amazing. Toured it several times and was asked to be a docent but life was simply too busy to take that on too. Last tour I did there the Enola Gay was finishing up restoration and they had us all run our hand down the forward fuselage, which was just the part forward of the wing. They were testing some coating designed to not show fingerprints on the polished metal and figured 4 tours a day was enough to test.
Originally Posted by Seafire
I am an Army Guy, but I concede the Navy has had better trained pilots from the first days of Military Aviation...its just a fact...
We still have better pilots. We use them to dock the ships. Our Aviators are better too.
My father was in WW2. He joined about a month before Pearl Harbor happened. Then spent 4 years in combat on the Phillipine Islands. He used to tell the story that they were all tuned into the engine sound of the Mitsubishi Zero, he said they could tell the difference between the Jap planes and the American planes miles before they got overhead so had time to hide. It was a nasty time for him.
I am an Army Guy, but I concede the Navy has had better trained pilots from the first days of Military Aviation...its just a fact...
A naval aviator does everything a air force pilot does and then has to return to a moving pitching deck the figurative size of a postage stamp and execute a controlled crash landing. Any aviator who successfully qualifies for carrier landings has my admiration.
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...
Good post. Tks.
On the topic of German night fighters in action I can think of no better work than Len Deighton's "Bomber", a fictional account of a single RAF Lancaster raid over Germany in June of 1943. Fictional but loaded with technical details gleaned from hundreds of interviews with actual participants on both sides.
For example if a Ju88 night fighter lost an engine, the crew would have to bail out because the drag imposed by the aerial array on the nose rendered the aircraft impossible to fly in anything but a circle. 'Nother example, at the Dutch Aerodrome featured in the novel, bird strikes on takeoff at night could pose as much of a threat as the RAF Gunners on the Lancasters.
Hub Zemke said in his book if it had been up to him the 56th would have been re-equipped with P-51’s. He does not say why but i suspect it was the longer range and potential for more opportunity.
I've got a book at home here that compares the Lancaster as a Bomber vs the Me 110 as a Night Fighter opposing it...
Written by a British Author...
He declares the Me 110 as the definite winner... a large percentage of the kills by the 110 was using what the German's Called Schrage Musik... or Jazz Music.... that consisted of two to four, 20 or 30 mm cannons, firing upwards at a 45 degree angle with a 70 degree off set... fired from below and to the left...
The German NF pilots were schooled on the weak spot on British Bombers... on the Lanc, it was between Number two Engine and fuselage .... that was where the largest gas tank was on the Lancaster.. 20 mm cannon incendiaries, into high octane fuel... quickly set the Lanc on fire, and many times the crew never had a chance to get out..
They would be silhouetted against the moon or search lights.... 90 days or less was about the average service life of a British bomber... shot down or shot up and making it home, Scrapped...
Allied bombers in Europe were pretty much flying gas cans with a load of bombs...
I remember in Saburo Saki's book of his WW 2 experiences... he intercepted a B17 that had just taken off for a long range mission with 4 others, from New Guinea.. 8,000 pounds of bombs and 1800 gallons of fuel.... he attacked from Below and fired his two 20 mm cannons into the bomb bay, using the Bomb Doors at his aiming point...it exploded... and he barely made it out of the way of the blast, missing being killed by the explosion...
can you imagine 8,000 pound of 500 lb bombs being blown up in front of you, and 1800 gallons of fuel exploding with them...
For the crew of the B 17, I'd bet there wasn't even a piece of body the size of a pinky finger left over...certainly no remains to find..
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
A very good read on Beaufigthters and Mossies is Night Fighter Navigator He spent the siege of Malta flying Beau's there. I had no idea how desperate that fight was and he gives a very good account of it and then later Mosquitos over the continent after D-Day.
I can legitimately brag that I was a fighter pilot. I graduated from Ground Attack Fighter School, and had the 1111 Air Force Specialty Code. But...
It was a phony certification, sort of. The US Army demanded that any Forward Air Controller working airstrikes over Army troops in contact had to be a rated fighter pilot to grasp the intricacies of dropping weapons near friendly troops. But the AF didn't have any spare fighter pilots to turn into FACs. So they created a "special purpose" school to magically create fighter pilots. Graduates were never intended to get assignments as fighter pilots, we were all enroute to FAC school. So we were "fighter pilots" on paper (satisfying the Army demands) for a whole three months - until we graduated from FAC school.
The school, flown out of Cannon AFB near Clovis, New Mexico, used AT-33 jets. Those were an odd hybrid of the F-80 fighter and the T-33 trainer. They had the long F-80 nose with twin .50-cals, wing hard points for bombs, but also the stretched twin cockpit of the trainer. Originally used to transition prop pilots in Korea/Japan, they had been mothballed for a decade before being refreshed for the school. There were only about 30 of them ever made, and the school had a dozen or so of them. So I can also legitimately claim (again, sort of) that I have flown the F-80.
AND, I concur that Naval Aviators have the far tougher flying job. I'm confident I could have done it, but I am very grateful I never had to.
good posts to be had here for sure. Pugs as usual gave an excellent primer on the basics, especially the "egg." Knowing your aircraft and the enemies' capabilities and limitations go a long way to keeping you alive. I flew the lowly S-3 Viking, but did attend and graduate from Fighter Weapns School at Miramar and was a DCM (defensive combat maneuvering0 instructor in the squadron. often times in the Mediterranean, we conducted Freedom Of Navigation (FON) ops (aka, trolling for Libyan Migs) in the Gulf Of Sydra. We'd fly right up to the 12 mile limit under radar following from the E-2 Hawkeyes and of course a section or two of Tomcats as BARCAP (barrier combat air patrols). Invariably the Migs would come out (usually MiG 23s or SU-22s) to intercept us. fun stuff.
We'd invariably go "beak to beak" with them for ONE turn In the horizontal) and the next thing they knew, we were on their six (we can out turn just about anything at 200KTS and maneuver flaps set). They'd immediately tap burner and go vertical which we of course could not hope to match. So, we'd "unload" (to gain airspeed) turn north towards the sea and drop way down to around 200'.
This would accomplish three things: Deny them the bottom of the "egg", make them work hard to pick us out of the radar clutter with the water so close below us and sucker them to the awaiting Tomcats who proceeded to scare theshit out of them. Ragheads were paranoid of low altitudes and I never saw one go below 3K'. And now here I sit in an office at a desk. I'm depressed...
So you were the bait. Yikes... Did you have the ability to effectively get out of the way of surface to air missiles?
Fortunately I never had to test that thanks to Pugs and his boys, but we trained to it constantly. I can tell you I've been illuminated by SA-2,5s, 6s countless times as well as lots of air to air stuff and of course all their stuff that was on board their ships as well..
I don't know squat about WWII fighters, but my favorite is the Mustang, because gramps fought in one.
It sounds like there was lots of tradeoffs with all of them. One plane I haven't seen mention is the 98 Mosquito, though I think it was a fighter/bomber, not a dedicated fighter.
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
A very good read on Beaufigthters and Mossies is Night Fighter Navigator He spent the siege of Malta flying Beau's there. I had no idea how desperate that fight was and he gives a very good account of it and then later Mosquitos over the continent after D-Day.
A very good read about Malta is the book Warburton's War, by Tony Spooner. It is the story of the man they called "The Hero of Malta", Adrian Warburton. His story is quite the legend, and is well worth reading about. He was a photo recon pilot, and his exploits are legendary.
Turbocharged throttle body fuel injection with water injection on an 18 cylinder, 2600 HP radial engine. It sounds like a pretty complicated procedure to get everything out of the motor, and if you did it wrong bad things could happen.
I watched the entire video and I can't see how anybody could keep their mind on everything that was necessary to get full performance out of the engine while under the stress of air combat.
I guess pilots got the hang of it after a while. But it sounds like a serious learning curve.
lots of good stuff. one thing i haven't seen...and it's something our planes almost always have...the ability to take a hit. ww2 lots of our pilots got shot up but were able to escape, return to base and learn not to do THAT again. the training system we put into place worked for us too.
one thing more. no matter what your plane can do, rules of engagement can prevent it from happening.
![[Linked Image from airandspace.si.edu]](https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/callout_half/public/images/editoral-stories/thumbnails/Russian001.jpg)