|
Post by edavids on Jul 18, 2016 12:38:25 GMT -6
As an adjunct to my previous post, the reason that the mission was assigned to an Army P38 squadron was that they were the only fighters with the necessary range. However, in a more general sense, I think that the P38 deserves to be ranked among the very best fighters of WW2, although it seems that it is often overlooked in that regard. I would be interested in hearing what others consider as the foremost fighters of the war and why and hope that we can get some comments and discussion going about that. The P-38 seems to be underrated by us latter day folks but certainly not its Axis foes. The Germans referred to it as "The Fork Tailed Devil" and the US's top ace, Major Richard Bong achieved all or most of his 40 kills in the P-38. The P-51 may be sexier and the F6F was a huge difference maker in carrier warfare. The FW 190 was a difference maker 1941-44, the BF-109 had legendary longevity. The ME-262 was a ground breaking bomber interceptor but never a game changer due to many reasons. A6M Zero superb in 1941-42 as well as the Ki-43 Hayabusa but any analysis of later Japanese fighters is that they 'could compete with' Allied fighters and were 'superior to' early war Japanese fighters. Gotta bring in your latter day Yaks as well. Has this provided some groundwork? I think it all boils down to what rhe fighter's mission is. For all around fighter it is pretty well a dead heat between the P-51 and P-38. I see that I left off the P-47. That is my honorable mention. It is January 1945. What is everyone else's airplane of choice? Best, David
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 18, 2016 12:44:12 GMT -6
Since this board's main topic has to do with the old west mine has to be a tough to tame Mustang! P-38 #2 and the Black Sheep had #3.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jul 18, 2016 12:59:20 GMT -6
Since this board's main topic has to do with the old west mine has to be a tough to tame Mustang! P-38 #2 and the Black Sheep had #3. Presume you mean F4U Corsair as Black Sheep. Great plane once the US Navy figured out it was not suitable for carrier deck landings and handed it over to Pappy Boyington, et al. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jul 18, 2016 13:01:12 GMT -6
Should not have left off the Spitfire. Apologies to Ian.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 18, 2016 14:39:23 GMT -6
Spitfire may have had the best engine. Oh, that's right the Mustang had something very similar!
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jul 18, 2016 21:23:39 GMT -6
Dave Culver, deceased, was a test pilot for the Army Air Corps during WW II and he claimed the P-38 was the best of all pursuit/fighters because of the extra engine. Regards Dave
PS The Spit was the most beautiful of all fighters up to and including today!
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 19, 2016 10:13:43 GMT -6
I hope this works and everyone can open it. This is a table that I put together one time when I was comparing the characteristics of the Zero to its contemporaries.
Planes.xlsx (12.71 KB)
or Early Adversaries/Equivalents Later Adversaries/Equivalents Zero P40 P38 Wildcat Spitfire Hurricane Bf109 Hellcat Corsair P47 P51 FW190 Weight (lbs) 3,100 6,100 12,800 5,900 5,100 5,750 7,650 9,200 9,000 10,000 5,900 7,700 Speed (mph) 331 360 414 320 370 340 365 380 417 443 437 426 Range (miles) 1,675 650 1,300 850 475 600 525 950 1,000 800 1,650 525 Ceiling (ft) 33,000 29,000 44,000 34,000 36,500 36,000 39,400 37,300 36,900 43,000 41,900 39,400 Rate of climb (ft/min) 3,100 2,100 4,750 2,200 2,600 2,800 3,350 3,500 2,900 3,200 3,200 3,300 Armament 20 MM 2 1 1 2 50 Cal 6 4 6 2 6 6 8 6 2 30 Cal 2 8 8 Rocket Capacity(#/in) 10 x 5 2 x 8 6 x 5 4 x 5 10 x 5 6 x 5 Bomb Capacity (lbs) 250 2,000 4,000 2,000 500 550 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,000 1,000
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jul 19, 2016 13:48:51 GMT -6
jodak I wish I was able to open your document as I know it would be very interesting. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 19, 2016 14:26:31 GMT -6
It opens in excel.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 21, 2016 12:38:53 GMT -6
The P-38 seems to be underrated by us latter day folks but certainly not its Axis foes. The Germans referred to it as "The Fork Tailed Devil" and the US's top ace, Major Richard Bong achieved all or most of his 40 kills in the P-38 (So did the #2 ace, Thomas McGuire, and the p-38 was responsible for more Japanese kills than any other plane) The P-51 may be sexier and the F6F was a huge difference maker in carrier warfare. The FW 190 was a difference maker 1941-44 (The FW190 outclassed the best American fighters of the time, the P-38 and P-47, to such an extent that the deployment of F4Us (Corsairs) to Europe was considered, but the AAF would not accept Navy planes and the P-51 came along to solve the problem) the BF-109 had legendary longevity. The ME-262 was a ground breaking bomber interceptor but never a game changer due to many reasons. A6M Zero superb in 1941-42 as well as the Ki-43 Hayabusa but any analysis of later Japanese fighters is that they 'could compete with' Allied fighters and were 'superior to' early war Japanese fighters. Gotta bring in your latter day Yaks as well. Has this provided some groundwork? I think it all boils down to what rhe fighter's mission is. For all around fighter it is pretty well a dead heat between the P-51 and P-38. I see that I left off the P-47. That is my honorable mention. You are correct that the fighter's "mission" or intent has a lot to do with it. The inclination is probably to think of them in purely fighter vs. fighter air superiority terms, but that was only part of their function and only a few were specifically designed for that. Other considerations were their effectiveness against and in defense of bombers, ground support and fighter bomber roles, the altitudes that different planes achieved optimal performance, etc. The U.S. AAF in particular fell prey to the thinking that "The bomber will always get through" and consequently underestimated the need for fighters to both defend against and protect bombers and optimized its fighters in the late 1930's for ground support roles, which was perceived as their primary function. That is a large part of the reason that the early war U.S. fighters struggled against their opponents, such as the Zero. There was also the fact that most planes evolved through several models during the course of the war, and in some cases the performance of the later models was very much different from the early ones.It is January 1945. What is everyone else's airplane of choice? Will address in another post
Best, David
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 21, 2016 13:15:11 GMT -6
Dave Culver, deceased, was a test pilot for the Army Air Corps during WW II and he claimed the P-38 was the best of all pursuit/fighters because of the extra engine. Regards Dave PS The Spit was the most beautiful of all fighters up to and including today! The two engine concept gave the P-38 certain definite advantages. The first was that it could fly just fine on one engine, so having two gave it an extra element of insurance, particularly in the long over ocean flights in the South Pacific where, if one engine was lost due to malfunction or combat, the other engine stood a good chance of getting the plane and pilot safely home. Also, as can be seen in the table that I posted above, two engines gave the P-38 exceptional speed and climbing ability for the time. Another benefit was that all of the weapons were contained in the nose of the fuselage and fired straight ahead, eliminating the problems related to weapons contained in the wings that gave optimal effect at only the specific distance that they were sighted to converge on a target. Also, the props were counter rotating (i.e., spun in opposite directions), which eliminated the problem of "torque steer" by which a one prop plane has the tendency to want to steer in the direction that the prop is rotating. The sensation is similar to that felt in an out of alignment car that wants to pull to one side but was much more pronounced. The main problem arising from that was that a plane was not as responsive, sometimes significantly so, in turning in the opposite direction, which could be a serious issue in aerial combat. When the U.S. was able to study the Zero that was captured after it crash landed in the Aleutians, it was discovered that it suffered from severe torque steer in one direction, so the U.S. formulated instructions to its pilots to always try to steer in the opposite direction when engaged with a Zero.
There were also disadvantages to two engines, such as double the number of gauges to monitor and controls to manipulate. However, the biggest problem with two engines was that, at least early on, they were a scarce commodity and the P-38 doubled the need for them over other fighters like the P-40. It also resulted in a plane that was of unorthodox design, which along with the double requirement for engines, made the Army slow in adopting it for mass production, with the result that there were relatively few P-38s available early in the war.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jul 21, 2016 14:56:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 21, 2016 15:40:09 GMT -6
It is January 1945. What is everyone else's airplane of choice? Best, David Top 5 Honorable mention -Spitfire: Although progressively updated throughout the war, the Spitfire did not keep pace with the developments in some other planes. It remained a classic dogfighter but was outmatched in speed and the range that was needed as Allied forces progressed further into mainland Europe. Its 30 caliber machine guns also produced a relatively anemic punch as compared to the armament of its late war contemporaries.
#5 - FW190: Fast in both level flight (436 mph) and in climbing (3,642 ft/min). Not as maneuverable as some others but heavy armament (4 x 20 mm cannon) and relatively high ceiling with good high altitude performance served it well against Allied bombers. Limited range/endurance and restricted forward/downward visibility.
#4 - P38 Lightning: Effective at all altitudes. Although the largest of the fighters, by a considerable margin, it was surprisingly nimble and maneuverable and was said to be extremely easy to fly in combat. It could outrun all Japanese fighters but could not catch or run from late model German FW-190s or Bf-109s. Very fast climber and exceptional range (2,260 miles) with external fuel tanks. Nose mounted forward firing guns provided greater effect on target than wing mounted guns in other fighters, and the 20 mm cannon made it more effective against bombers than the P-51 or F4U. Could carry the greatest ground support armament (rockets/bombs) of any fighter but was not as good in that role as some others. Complicated and difficult to mass produce, which limited its deployment.
#3 - P51 Mustang: Best Allied air superiority and escort fighter in Europe. Roughly comparable in speed to FW-190 in both level flight and climb. Significantly longer range (1,140 miles) with internal fuel than the P-38, but not as much external fuel capability. Range, together with very high ceiling and high altitude performance made it an exceptional bomber escort, the role that was the primary need by late in the war. Not as good at lower altitudes and slower speeds. Excellent all around visibility, probably the best of any fighter.
#2 - F4U Corsair: Later models eliminated most of the problems with visability and high stall speeds that plagued earlier models. High speed (445 mph), maneuverability, ceiling, long range (1,000 miles internal and 1,600 miles with external), and ruggedness made it probably the best all around American fighter. Rated by Japanese pilots as the best American fighter that they faced. Also superb in ground support and a capable dive bomber, which allowed the Navy to reduce the carrier compliment of dive bombers and increase the number of F4Us, that could perform in both roles. That resulted in a significant increase in fighter power without reducing dive bombing capability. Capable enough that it was one of the few piston engine combat planes carried over to Korea, a distinction it shared with the P-51. Both served primarily in ground support roles, at which the F4U was superior due to its greater ruggedness and larger ordinance carrying capability.
Drum roll ...
#1 - Bf-109: If not the best, at least the most important. The Bfs (or Me s if you prefer) served with distinction throughout the war and were progressively upgraded to maintain their relevance. Over 35,000 were produced, making them, by far, the most produced fighter of the war. Unlike many others they were in fact designed with mass production in mind. If you look at images or line drawings of the Bfs and their most noted rival, the Spitfire, your first impression will probably be that they look very similar, which they do. However, if you look closer you will notice that all of the surfaces and lines of the Spitfire are curved and rounded, while those of the Bf are straight and flat, making them much easier to punch out and manufacture on a mass production basis. This ease of manufacture alone drives it to the top of the list of best fighters. Most probably think of the early war Spitfires as being superior to the Bfs, due to the myth that the Spitfires won the Battle of Britain (it was really Hurricanes that carried most of the load), but they were very comparable in most respects, except at high altitude where the Bf was superior. The Bf's fuel injected engine also made in superior in a dive over the Spitfire's gravity fed carbureted engine that would cut out when subjected to negative G dives and maneuvers. The Bf also had a little better range. The Bfs in the BoB were mostly "E" models, but they were replaced by the much improved "Fs" that served through most of the war. The G model was kind of a step backward, but the K model introduced in late 1944 was superb in just about every respect. It's speed increased to 452 mph, making it the fastest piston engine fighter of the war, and it had a climb rate of 4,800 ft/min that no Allied fighter could match. It retained decent maneuverability, but, like the P-51, this dropped off significantly at slower speeds that the pilots had to guard against. Ceiling and high altitude performance were among the best, and it even had a pressurized cockpit, which I don't think any other fighters did. On the negative side its powerful engine coupled with its light weight resulted in significant torque steer, and it retained limited range, although that became less of a problem as the battle space shrank and the opponents came to them, so to speak.
p.s. If you look at the list of the highest scoring aces of the war here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces) you will note that you have to go way, way down the list before you see much of anything but Germans, most of whose kills were scored in Bf109s, mostly on the Eastern front.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 21, 2016 16:00:47 GMT -6
Robb,
That is correct, the P-38 was noted for being very maneuverable and easy to fly, especially for such a large plane. That was especially true for later models where a sort of "power steering" was incorporated. I posted my last post at about the sme time as you did yours, so you might have missed it, but it also makes mention of the P-38's maneuverability, or, as you say, manoeuvrability, from which I take it that you are British
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 22, 2016 7:35:34 GMT -6
I was thinking about my list of top fighters some more last night, and I guess that I really should give the Zero an honorable mention. Although I don't think that it was the boogey man that it is generally made out to be, and it was outclassed by the best Allied fighters toward the end of the war, it was a definite difference maker early on and still dangerous toward the end, especially if an Allied pilot could be induced to engage in a slow speed, turning fight. It was renowned for its maneuverability and extreme range but was never as fast as most of its opponents, was very "thin skinned", and relatively lightly armed. In regard to armament, it was equipped with two 20 mm cannon and 2 30 caliber machine guns, which, on the surface, would appear to be a fairly good armament suite. However, since the two types of weapons had quite different ballistic characteristics, it was difficult to bring them both on target at the same time. Therefore, to avoid wasting ammunition the Zero was equipped with a selector switch by which the pilot had to choose to fire either the guns or cannon but not both at the same time, so the effective armament was much less than what it appears. Also, the cannon were relatively slow firing, so, while they were effective against slower bombers, they were less so against faster, rapidly maneuvering fighters.
There are two other planes that I considered giving honorable mention status to in my original list, did not in the interest of brevity, but will mention now. The first is the F6F Hellcat. Although slower than most of its late war Allied contemporaries, it was faster than the Zero and highly maneuverable, being the only Allied fighter that could turn inside of a Zero. In other respects it was very similar to the F4U Corsair, for which it was somewhat of a substitution. The Corsair had originally been intended as the Navy's next generation fighter but was initially plagued with a number of problems in carrier operations, and the Hellcat was widely deployed instead. Like the Corsair it was rugged, effective in ground support, and a capable dive bomber, with the same benefits that entailed as with the Corsair. However, after the Corsair's problems had been largely mitigated it began to replace the Hellcat on carriers in increasing numbers, from which I conclude that the Navy considered it the superior of the two.
My other honorable mention is outside of the box and goes to the de Havilland Mosquito. Although not generally thought of as a fighter it was used quite extensively in a night fighter role and, in the proper configuration, was fairly capable as a daytime fighter as well, particularly against bombers in an interceptor role. It was fast, had long range, was fairly maneuverable, and packed an extremely heavy punch of 4 20 mm cannon in the nose and 4 30 caliber machine guns in the wings. All-in-all, it was probably the most versatile plane of the war and I think deserving as an honorable mention as a fighter.
|
|