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
JFKY    Corsair Second Best?   1/3/2013 3:33:15 PM
OK, I'll bite, what would you list as "best" carrier bird?  I don't do specifications, but I don't know if the F-6F is better, and I sure wouldn't list the Bearcat F8F (?) as "better."  The Bearcat might have been a better INTERCEPTOR, but it wasn't a better all-arounder.  The F4U was a better night fighter, reconnaissance, ground attack aircraft.
 
For most valuable carrier a/c, not "best" but valuable I'd go with the F4F Wildcat.  It was adequate enough to fight from 1941-45.  It had defeated the A6M by the time the Hellcat or Corsair came along.  I've said it before, the Wildcat could have gone all the way to Tokyo Bay, without the Hellcat/Bearcat/Corsair, but without the Wildcat, there's no Hellcat/Bearcat/Corsair.  I'd give the F4F the "nod" as a very valuable plane, if not the best.
 
But I ramble, please tell me the "best" carrier fighter, in our opinion.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/3/2013 4:07:51 PM
Shooter,    

Your arguments are characterised by their usual cherry picking inanity so I will keep this brief:
    I "Cherry Pick" because some facts are more important than others. Like wise some performance factors are much more important than others. I wellcome the debate over which factor is more important and how much we should weight them.   

1. To suggest that the Spitfire should have been retired before the end of the War but that the Bf-109 remained competitive is idiotic. It is an oppinion and like all oppinions, subject to interpritation by others. The Spitfire Mk-XIV was at or near the top of the piston engined fighter class in the majority of performance parameters, including top speed, acceleration, rate of climb, operational ceiling and rolling/turning ability under 200 mph from introduction in early 1944 until the end of the War. I would dispute many of these claims in mid to late '44, the Mk-XIV was no longer competitive because of the numerous handling defects, less speed than the enemy under some of the most important conditions, such that it was not that effective as a weapon! ( Like the ability to roll "Almost as fast" as other types at "Under 200 MPH!) Anybody else who wants to find that out for themselves can look at these sites, From the links you provide below, IIRC; Mk-XIV top speed 448 MPH. The second link lists the various German Jets are all faster than the Mk-XIV, the Fw-190D is faster at low altitudes using B fuel and or MW-50 than Mk-XIV, the rates of roll at actual combat speeds over 300MPH, show the Mk-XIV to be very much slower than many others. How does the Mk-XIV compair in clinb to the Me-109K with MW-50 at low/medium altitude and NO2 above? Does it have CL guns? How much AoA can it pull? Hint none of those charts show that because the testers back then did not concider it. None of these facts are in the links you provide. They also do not show the American tests of the early Spit at Wright Field in Daton Ohio where the AAC found it to twitchy and under stabilised when compaired to American types. It is also shorter ranged UNDER COMBAT CONDITIONS than most of it's comps! IE, Range in combat cruise with full rich mixture! You will not find those figures on those tests because those links are "Cherry Picked" to prove the points mentioned. But they say very little about the defecvts witch were not well known at the time, but are now a mater of record. See pages 410-411 and the rest of the chapter on the Mk-XIV in "Spitfire, the history" by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady. Take a close look at all the pictures of various Mk-XIVs and their prototypes. Specifically look at ALL of the Rudders and Horizontal tail surfaces! None of the links below show any of these facts. So do just one thing, find the date of the first flight of the first Mk-XIV prototype and then find the date of it's first kill! The reason why there is such a large gap between the supposedly well developed early spit and fixing all of the newly discovered defects is that they did not have a clue about many of those facts that the Mk-XIV prototype discovered and which were known to us here because of the tests at Wright field early on in the Spitfires carrier.
As a second part of the argument, many Spit pilots both durring and after the war think that the last "GOOD" handling Spit was the Mk-IX!

   

3. Regarding the P-51, the facts are that it could do jobs from late 1943 onwards that no other fighter could This is not true. and was the one American piston engined type that the USAF chose to keep around and continue to develop after the War. This is not true, they also kept the F-82, F-7 and F-8 and the Corsair too, IIRC. USAAF bomber losses in the ETO would have been much greaterAlmost certainly! War in Europe may well have been longer, Not much chance of that! something that can't be said for any other fighter .  how it went against the the Fw-190, How did it fare Vs the Fw-190D?   
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html</span>
;" target="_blank">link


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/3/2013 4:19:12 PM
how ANYONE could argue that the Bf-109 was competitive post-WWII.  It was used post-WWWII, it is true, but never by any major powers or in any major conflicts. Israel's war of independance in 1948? What war was Great Britan in in 1948?
 
The Spitfire and the Bf-109, as aerial combat platforms, were obsolete by 1945, technically, made so by the jet. This is a common misconception, in that there are very many jobs that prop planes can do that jets of the time could never do! The Meteor, the M-262, the P-80 all were the HMS Dreadnought to piston-engined fighters.  So, yes the RAF turned it's back on the Spitfire like, as A2A platforms because they were no longer useful.  
 
Doesn't mean that the Bearcat, the various piston-driven ATTACK aircraft that lingered on in USAF, USN, FAA, and RAF service were chopped liver, but their days were clearly numbered, true in the case of the Skyraider it's day was 20 years long, but even in the attack role jets were the future. There were many prop planes in service for decades after the advent of Jets because jets are not capable of doing some jobs to this day!
This is a very narrow point of view and if I get to spec the mission, no jet in service before 1950 could do them!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/3/2013 4:27:15 PM
OK, I'll bite, what would you list as "best" carrier bird?  I don't do specifications, but I don't know if the F-6F is better, and I sure wouldn't list the Bearcat F8F (?) as "better." I certainly would!  The Bearcat might have been a better INTERCEPTOR, but it wasn't a better all-arounder. It almost certainly was! The F4U was a better night fighter, Than the F-7? reconnaissance, ground attack aircraft.Really?
But I ramble, please tell me the "best" carrier fighter, in our opinion. I like the F-7 as the all around carrier combat plane.
But you have to be very careful to compare like Vs like with war time stats vs peace time stats which were very different, both in the way they were done and what they measured.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Last response to Shooter   1/3/2013 5:13:31 PM

“They also do not show the American tests of the early Spit at Wright Field in Daton Ohio where the AAC found it to twitchy and under stabilised when compaired to American types.

Ahhh .... that must have been why the USAAF used it’s 600 Spitfires as its premier air superiority fighters in Europe and the Med until 1943.

 

“ and was the one American piston engined type that the USAF chose to keep around and continue to develop after the War. This is not true, they also kept the F-82, F-7 and F-8 and the Corsair too, IIRC

LOL! I said USAF .... the F-7, F-8 and Corsair were all Navy aircraft. Oh, and the F-82 was a development of the Mustang.

 
Really, if after all these years you are getting these basics wrong, you really need to get another hobby. 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/3/2013 7:11:14 PM

“They also do not show the American tests of the early Spit at Wright Field in Daton Ohio where the AAC found it to twitchy and under stabilised when compaired to American types.”Ahhh .... that must have been why the USAAF used it’s 600 Spitfires as its premier air superiority fighters in Europe and the Med until 1943. Really, if after all these years you are getting these basics wrong, you really need to get another hobby. 

How does their use relate to the other facts. This type of argument is like saying that the RA preffered Muskets over rifles in the revolutionary war, because they had so many of them!
Use because of need does not counter, or eliminate minor defects. Secondly, exactly how many other types of planes did the USAAF have at that time in that Theator of Opps? Now that that argument, or more corectly diversion has been laid to rest, let us get on with the core question of Spitfire stability, or more corectly lack of same as evidenced by the various versions of the tail epenage in the Mk-XIV Spitfire?

 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    45-Shooter (Hamilcar/Herald)   1/3/2013 7:44:38 PM
You've lost it, sorry.
 
Jets were theoretically and empirically better than prop a/c.  Empirical first, we know they were superior because they prospered and prop's did not.  It took ~20 years to see the last AD-1/4 's to be off the CVA decks, but they were the LAST prop a/c!  Navies and air forces converted to jets as soon as possible.
 
Two, theoretically they are better because of hp/weight ratios, speed, and payload...and the fact that in a given period of time jets can fly far more sorties than their prop-driven counter-parts. 
 
As to two carrier a/c you mention you fail completely!
 
F-7f Tiger cat did not see WII combat service!  It saw combat in KOREA, downing two biplanes! I'm sorry best all around fighter of World War II should actually have seen service in WWII!
 
Again the same goes for the F8F Bearcat.  It saw NO combat service in WWII.  It's first combat was in Indochina, admittedly as a ground attack a/c.  But, please note the USN had the choice of F4U or F8F for Korea and ground attack, and chose the F4U.  I think demonstrates the overall superiority of the Corsair over the Bearcat. 
 
Lastly, the Jewish War of Independence was NOT a major conflict, and the Haganah was NOT a major combatant.  They flew the Bf-109 because it was what they could get,  not because it was a superior a/c.  And I might point out that it was opposed by the Egyptians, flying the SPITFIRE.  And the Israelis replaced their Bf-109's with...F-51 Cavaliers, in the A2G role for the 1956 War.
 
There were things that prop-driven a/c could do better, but not many...and btw, I think you want to confuse "prop-driven" with INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE  A/c, and they are not the same, as you well know.  So whilst the Fairey Gannett or the French Alize may be prop a/c, IIRC, they are TURBO-prop, not Internal combustion engine prop...so the jet has taken the place of the ICE, for most aviation needs.  And this was obvious in the post-1945 era.  The RN and the RAF simply could not afford the wholesale replacement of their a/c fleets with jets, until well into the 1960's.
 
Any way Shooter/Hamilcar/Herald I think you have wandered into a typical set of argumentation here...having made a declaration you are going to continue on with it, no matter how  much you have to torture your evidence.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/3/2013 8:35:36 PM

Jets were theoretically and empirically better than prop a/c. Show me a jet with a MTO under five metric tonnes that can fly as far as a recip/prop plane with a crew of two up!  Empirical first, we know they were superior because they prospered and prop's did not. C-130, Douglas DC-4, Lockheed Conni, COD, etc... It took ~20 years to see the last AD-1/4 's to be off the CVA decks, but they were the LAST prop a/c! See above. Navies and air forces converted to jets as soon as possible. Yes, IF you admit the soonest possible might have taken much longer than required if RANGE was not a factor! No early jet could match the range of the AD-1. Two, theoretically they are better because of hp/weight ratios, Again, not if you include the weight of fuel for a given Range. speed, Over Range? and payload... Over Range? and the fact that in a given period of time jets can fly far more sorties than their prop-driven counter-parts.  Over Range? If the range is long enough it is impossible for any jet engined plane prior to 1960 to fly that mission! As to two carrier a/c you mention you fail completely!The Grumman F7F Tigercat was the first twin-engined fighter aircraft... to enter service with the United States Navy.... Designed for the new Midway-class aircraft carriers, the aircraft were too large to operate from earlier decks. Although delivered to United States Marine Corps... (USMC) combat units before the end of World War II..., the Tigercat did not see combat service in that war. See this link;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... 
F-7f Tiger cat did not see WII combat service! True! That depends on your deffinition of "Service" does it not? I think demonstrates the overall superiority of the Corsair over the Bearcat. See above. Lastly, the Jewish War of Independence was NOT a major conflict, and the Haganah was NOT a major combatant. Tell that to 10 million Jews! They flew the Bf-109 because it was what they could get.  And I might point out that it was opposed by the Egyptians, flying the SPITFIRE. Who got their collective butts kicked all the way back to Aswan!!! And the Israelis replaced their Bf-109's with...F-51 Cavaliers, in the A2G role for the 1956 War. Just to be absolutely certain we get the whole picture, when did the IAF fly their last Me-109 mission/sorte?There were things that prop-driven a/c could do better, but not many... OH! So very true! and btw, I think you want to confuse "prop-driven" with INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE What, aircraft turbines are not "Internal Combustion" engines? You could have fooled me. A/c, and they are not the same, as you well know. How very well I do know this! I also stand by my premis that Recip, ot piston engines can do several things that turbine engines, wether prop or jet can not possibly do! So whilst the Fairey Gannett or the French Alize may be prop a/c, IIRC, they are TURBO-prop, not Internal combustion engine prop... You have fooled me AGAIN! so the jet has taken the place of the ICE, for most aviation needs. How do you define the word "MOST"? Exactly how many Recip-Prop planes are there registered at this very moment and how many Turbines/jets? I would counter that this proves that the Recip-Prop is the answer for the VAST MAJORITY of "MOST" needs! The RN and the RAF simply could not afford the wholesale replacement of their a/c fleets with jets, until well into the 1960's. I would contend they were not able to replace most prop planes, because the jets of the decade simply could not do the required mission!
Your problem is that you fail to get past all of the easy to measure performance parameters and ignore those much less glamorous factors. Why did the Avro-Lincoln with it's Recip engines and Props serve so long? The Gannet? C-130? Etc... As an aside, show me a ~50 tonne MTO jet that can take off from a dirt road and fly 1,380 miles with a 20 ton load!

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    JFKY   1/3/2013 9:06:30 PM
Shooter isn't Herald/Hamilcar, he has been here for about 10 years. Unfortunately there is more than one goose coming up with this sort of rubbish on this board.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Shooter   1/3/2013 9:14:10 PM
The point about the USAAF using Spitfire is highly relevant because for air superiority in Northern Europe and the Med they used it in preference to all the US types until 1943. They had plenty of P-38s, P-39s and P-40s and plenty of capacity to produce more, but none of them were good enough for air to air missions against the most current Fw-190s and Bf-109s. Even in 1943 some units in the Med didn't want to change over to Thunderbolts and Mustangs because they considered the Spitfire to be a better air to air type, it is only the range of the latter two types that gave them a definitive reason for the change. It is your point about the difficulties in handling the Spitfire that is irrelevant. High performance aircraft ARE often difficult to handle, but any pilot who couldn't taxi a Spitfire safely was probably going to become a hamburger in a dogfight with a decently flown Bf-109 or Fw-190 anyway.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics