ww2 Aircraft

T

tommy_gunn

Active member
I have seen alot of WW2 storys on planes, spitfire vs fockewulf vs zero vs hellcat witch was the best overall between them or was there better than those
 
At one point or another, each of the 4 A/c you quote were the "best". The A6M Zero blew everything then in the air away. It's speed, rate of climb and turn were superior to all comers (at the time). It's armament was miserable though and never really improved.
The Spitfire was always a superior aircraft, and subsequent variants only made it better until the Mk.XXs. Very poor range though.
The F6F Hellcat was the "best" for a very brief time (in the Pacific theater anyway).
The FW.109 succeeded the Me-109 and brought a terrible toll on Allied bombers. Air to air though, they were outclassed by the Spitfire and Mustang. The RAF Hurricane was about on a par.
By far the "best" fighter aircraft of WWII was the P-51 Mustang. Robust, potent, maneuverable and well flown, they cleared the skies for the Allies in Europe.
Honorable mentions, Tempest, Thunderbolt, Mosquito, Lightning, Warhawk/Kittyhawk, Bearcat, Tigercat.
 
I'm going for the Spitfire, purely on the sound of that Merlin engine.

This is an emotional response and does not require acknowlegement.
 
Just saw this topic and thought Mustang fans might like to see my latest videos finished today.

2 P-51's Side by Side take-off + B-25 + P-47 Fly-bys

New videos from May 15, 2010 fly-bys.
............

2 P-51's Side by Side take-off + a B-25 Fly-by.


Here's a link to a U-tube version:
http://www.youtube.com/user/5shot#p/a/u/1/4UPJr-iFIxY

And one to a bigger version:
http://www.pointshooting.com/kilo6b.wmv


P-47 Fly-by.

U-tube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkM1Otulby0

And one to a bigger version:
http://www.pointshooting.com/p470515a.wmv

Hope to get one of a Spitfire this Sat.
 
Re: WW-2 Fighter Aircraft

Does anyone have any real information on how well the Yak-9 performed against the Me-109 and Fw-190? I know the Soviet won but, what was the Yak-9's contributions? Did it do well because the Luftwaffe moved many of its fighters to the western front?
 
I must, respectfully, disagree with Clockwinder on several points.
I assume we are not considering any of the Jet powered aircraft in our discussion (Brit Meteor, several German planes and one US (P-80, which did fly operational missions, admittedly not seeing combat). And I noticed no twin engine, multi-seat aircraft are listed.
The A6M’s armament, in its time, was more than adequate and it was superior in the areas stated, except for speed. The Curtis P-40 was at least as fast, and other allied planes could hold their own especially in a dive. The Zero’s greatest advantage early in the War was the training and experience of the IJN pilots. Also contributing to the A6M's reputation was that vertually all single engine Japanese aircraft were referred to as "Zero"s".
The Spitfire was elegant and effective, but as stated its lack of range was a serious problem and I think that eliminates it from being the “best” of the War. If not then why would the P-51 have been necessary?
Grumman's F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat did not see combat in WWII.
The F6F Hellcat was the USN’s first line fighter from its introduction in early 1943 to the end of the War (over 2 ½ years, longer than the A6M was dominate), and the Hellcat saw combat with the RN in the ETO.
Which fighter was the “best” of WWII has been debated since the War ended. Besides the planes already listed others can lay claim. Russia’s La-9 was evaluated by the West after the War and rated as overall superior to any of our piston engine aircraft. Late model Fw-190’s and Ta-152’s , several Italian fighters mated with Daimler Benz engines (G.55, C-205, Re 2000), Japanese Ki-84 and N1k2 were at least as good as any of ours. Vought’s F4U stayed in production after the War and was used in large numbers in Korea, and late model P-38’s can claim to be the most versatile single seat fighter of the War.
I think it is a matter of opinion, greatly influenced by where you are from, as to which fighter was truly the “best”.

“Fight’em ‘till hell freezes over – then fight’em on the ice.” Dutch Meyer
 
I'm not a huge aircraft buff, but has anybody taken into account the venerable Bristol Beaufighter? I don't know enough to make a reasoned argument for it, but I've always had a bit of a soft spot for them.
 
Clockwinder said:
At one point or another, each of the 4 A/c you quote were the "best". The A6M Zero blew everything then in the air away. It's speed, rate of climb and turn were superior to all comers (at the time). It's armament was miserable though and never really improved.
The Spitfire was always a superior aircraft, and subsequent variants only made it better until the Mk.XXs. Very poor range though.
The F6F Hellcat was the "best" for a very brief time (in the Pacific theater anyway).
The FW.109 succeeded the Me-109 and brought a terrible toll on Allied bombers. Air to air though, they were outclassed by the Spitfire and Mustang. The RAF Hurricane was about on a par.
By far the "best" fighter aircraft of WWII was the P-51 Mustang. Robust, potent, maneuverable and well flown, they cleared the skies for the Allies in Europe.
Honorable mentions, Tempest, Thunderbolt, Mosquito, Lightning, Warhawk/Kittyhawk, Bearcat, Tigercat.
Click to expand...


Gotta Disagree with the Above...

1. The A6M2 armament wasnt that bad. The 7.7 MG were weak but they carried 2x 20mm Cannon which even at the end of the war would have knocked down any allied Aircraft except for the heavy bombers. Remember the Zero was a fighter not a Interceptor, very heavy armament wasn't that important.

2. Not all Spits were good. The Spitfire Vb/c was inferior to both the ME-109F-4 and the FW-190A3. Spit Vs got manhandled until the Spit IX came out.

3. Although in flight performance wise the Vought F4U was better I still think the F6F Hellcat was the better aircraft. The F6F was a much easier plane to fly, required less maintenance, was well adapted to carrier operations. The F6F also shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Allied Plane. The Corsair was unforgiving to anyone but the experts, its engine suffered from overheating issues, it didn't like landing on carriers due to a weak landing gear, its engine torque was nasty, and it had a terrible tendency to kill inexperienced pilots, giving it the name the "ensign elimininator".

4. The RAF Hurricane was on par with the FW-190? Not even close. The Hurricane was vastly inferior, in just about every respect. I dont think the Mustang or Spitfire were superior either. The Mustang was a high altitude fighter, but at lower than 13000ft the FW-190 was better. The Spit is more comparible although it depends on which model SPIT and 190 you are referring to.

The best aircraft of WWII. The P-47 Thunderbolt. Faster than the P-51, far more robust, better armed. Was better suited to Dogfighting at Low Level (where most dogfights took place) and a terrific ground attack aircraft. The P-51 only bettered the P-47 at very high altitude and its range was superior. The P-51 was a fantastic Bomber Escort, but if I were flying a fighter sweep (A open-ended mission to engage whatever enemy targets found air or ground) I'd much rather be in the Cockpit of a Jug than a Mustang.
 
Last edited:
The P-38 was just the ticket for the 5th Air Force in the southwest Pacific, considering the geography & nature of the enemy.
While the P-40 could do many jobs poorly, it was better @ ground attack with its air cooled engine than the P-51 with its vulnerable radiator.
 
George said:
The P-38 was just the ticket for the 5th Air Force in the southwest Pacific, considering the geography & nature of the enemy.
While the P-40 could do many jobs poorly, it was better @ ground attack with its air cooled engine than the P-51 with its vulnerable radiator.
Click to expand...

I agree about the P-38 being “the right plane in the right place at the right time” and I think that if it was me flying missions at that time I would have preferred the safety factor of two engines over one.
I m guessing that stating the P-40 has an “..air cooled engine” is a typo - as far as I know all versions of the P-40 used in combat had liquid cooled engines - in fact the first versions of the P-51(A-36, P-51, P51A) used the same Allison engines as the P-40 (excluding the P-40F which had a US built Merlin).
 
[FONT=&quot]I still believe that “The best fighter of WWII” is too subjective to be stated as an absolute, the best at what point of the war?; the best in the ETO, the E. Front, the Pacific or the Med?; the best naval fighter, the best twin engine fighter?, and on and on.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"The Japs have me surrounded, the sons of *****’s can’t get away from me now!" Gen “Chesty” Puller, USMC[/FONT]
 
muscogeemike said:
I m guessing that stating the P-40 has an “..air cooled engine” is a typo - as far as I know all versions of the P-40 used in combat had liquid cooled engines - in fact the first versions of the P-51(A-36, P-51, P51A) used the same Allison engines as the P-40 (excluding the P-40F which had a US built Merlin).
Click to expand...
Brain fade...The P-51 had a higher loss rate to ground fire in China vs P-40 because of the radiator location. P-40 had it in a better protected location.
 
Re: About ww2 Aircraft

George said:
The P-51 had a higher loss rate to ground fire in China vs P-40 because of the radiator location. P-40 had it in a better protected location.
Click to expand...
This was true in the ETO, also. Once a P-51 pilot became a pilot, his only real threat came from AAA! Very, very few P-51 aces were shot down in their P-51 Mustang from Luftwaffe pilots.
 
No Russian Aircraft evaluated

mmarsh said:
Gotta Disagree with the Above...

1. The A6M2 armament wasnt that bad. The 7.7 MG were weak but they carried 2x 20mm Cannon which even at the end of the war would have knocked down any allied Aircraft except for the heavy bombers. Remember the Zero was a fighter not a Interceptor, very heavy armament wasn't that important.

2. Not all Spits were good. The Spitfire Vb/c was inferior to both the ME-109F-4 and the FW-190A3. Spit Vs got manhandled until the Spit IX came out.

3. Although in flight performance wise the Vought F4U was better I still think the F6F Hellcat was the better aircraft. The F6F was a much easier plane to fly, required less maintenance, was well adapted to carrier operations. The F6F also shot down more enemy aircraft than any other Allied Plane. The Corsair was unforgiving to anyone but the experts, its engine suffered from overheating issues, it didn't like landing on carriers due to a weak landing gear, its engine torque was nasty, and it had a terrible tendency to kill inexperienced pilots, giving it the name the "ensign elimininator".

4. The RAF Hurricane was on par with the FW-190? Not even close. The Hurricane was vastly inferior, in just about every respect. I dont think the Mustang or Spitfire were superior either. The Mustang was a high altitude fighter, but at lower than 13000ft the FW-190 was better. The Spit is more comparible although it depends on which model SPIT and 190 you are referring to.

The best aircraft of WWII. The P-47 Thunderbolt. Faster than the P-51, far more robust, better armed. Was better suited to Dogfighting at Low Level (where most dogfights took place) and a terrific ground attack aircraft. The P-51 only bettered the P-47 at very high altitude and its range was superior. The P-51 was a fantastic Bomber Escort, but if I were flying a fighter sweep (A open-ended mission to engage whatever enemy targets found air or ground) I'd much rather be in the Cockpit of a Jug than a Mustang.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with your analysis on the aricraft you list but no USSR planes are mentioned and the Russkies had some very good ones.
 
There was always a leap frog effect where the opposition would bring out a fighter that was superior, then that would be countered by the allies doing an upgrade. There were some 23 Mks of Spitfire and you could not compare the Spitfires that flew in BoB with the ones that flew at the end of war. This can also be said about every Airforce involved in WW2.
 
AVON said:
This was true in the ETO, also. Once a P-51 pilot became a pilot, his only real threat came from AAA! Very, very few P-51 aces were shot down in their P-51 Mustang from Luftwaffe pilots.
Click to expand...

Yes but there was a reason for that.

First of all the job of the P-51 was to escort the high altitude bombers, not to shoot down Luftwaffe planes. Similarly the Luftwaffe focused on attacking the bomber formations not the escort fighters.

Secondly, most dogfights happened at below 12000ft, and the P-51 was lost a considerable amount of performance at lower altitude, which was why the USAF and RAF preferred using their P-47 and Spitfires against German fighters.

I just read a history of JG.26 and the pilots all said it was the late war models of British Spitfire (MK.IX and XIII) as the adversary they feared tho most. JG shot down lots of Mustangs because at lower Altitude the FW-190 was superior. No question that at hight altitude the P-51 reigned supreme.

Frankly though if I were to pick the one aircraft to fly, it would be the P-47, it was faster, better armed and could withstand a lot more punishment. It wasnt as agile as other aircraft, but it was a superior "boom and zoom" fighter so it didn't need to be.


LeENFIELD

I agree, however there were instances of marks aircraft that despite being technically superior to their predecessor had actually become inferior in respect to their adversary.

Take the British Spitfire... The MKI and MK II that fought in the BoB were excellent aircraft, superior to the 109E-3. However the MK5 b/c variants although superior to the MKI, were completely outclassed by the updated 109F and also the FW-190. The later MK.IX and later corrected this.

The Germans too suffered the same issue. The 109F was the pinnacle of the 109, superior in late 1940-1942 to anything the allies and Russians had. But in mid-1942 the 109G made its debut and although it was the most manufactured variant of the 109 it was inferior to most RAF and USAF fighters. The gap in performance between the Allies and the Luftwaffe became even greater when the Germans deployed the 109K, which most people feel was inferior in performance to the 109G-10.

What I am trying to get at is that a UPDATED variant of a aircraft didn't always mean it was a SUPERIOR aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Many RAF fighter pilots including Stanford Tuck regarded the MkIX (MkXVI with Packard built Merlin) as the finest of all the marks.

The P51 was in a class of her own, beautiful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top