Best fighter in WW2???

[BrucePowers]

P51D gets my vote.............

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

... Why isn't the Ki100 on the list?

It should be re Wikipedia:

"An overall assessment of the effectiveness of the Ki-100 rated it highly in agility and a well-handled Ki-100 was able to out-maneuver any American fighter including the formidable P-51D Mustangs and the P-47N Thunderbolts ... The Ki-100 was a deadly opponent and together with the Army's Ki-84 and the Navy's Kawanishi N1K-J (were) the only other Japanese fighters being (sic) able to defeat the latest Allied types."

The only issue w/the Ki-100 was that its engine (Ha-112-H) performance diminished at high altitudes vs. B-29s and their escorts.

[decaro]

Sorry: double-posting!

[Nomad]

I'll nominate the A-1 Skyraider - how many of the others shot down a Mig-17? [:D] http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway1960/ ... htops.html

[TheElf]

X-wing or TIE Fighter?

My vote is the Cylon drone ship...

[Nikademus]

Cylon Raider or Colonial Viper?

[Big B]

I think officially, he was the best fighter of WWII [;)]

[Barb]

I will vote for Spitfire. For me it is the best of the best.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Cylon Raider or Colonial Viper?

oooooh Colonial Viper...

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

... Why isn't the Ki100 on the list?

It should be re Wikipedia:

"An overall assessment of the effectiveness of the Ki-100 rated it highly in agility and a well-handled Ki-100 was able to out-maneuver any American fighter including the formidable P-51D Mustangs and the P-47N Thunderbolts ... The Ki-100 was a deadly opponent and together with the Army's Ki-84 and the Navy's Kawanishi N1K-J (were) the only other Japanese fighters being (sic) able to defeat the latest Allied types."

The only issue w/the Ki-100 was that its engine (Ha-112-H) performance diminished at high altitudes vs. B-29s and their escorts.

I wouldn't debate the Ki-100s maneuvering ability, but it should be noted that the P-47 was not really built for exceptional maneuvering. With its powerful engine, armor and guns it was more a flying tank.

[hawker]

I think that,after i read everything and dig up some stuff on net,final top 5 fighters should be:

1. Lavochkin La-7 (USSR) and North American P-51 "Mustang" (USA)

2. FW-190

3. Nakajima Ki-84 "Hayate"

4. Yakovlev Yak-3

I downsize the list a bit[;)]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I wouldn't debate the Ki-100s maneuvering ability, but it should be noted that the P-47 was not really built for exceptional maneuvering. With its powerful engine, armor and guns it was more a flying tank.

But if I'm not mistaken, at high altitude and/or high speed, the P-47 did have exceptional maneuverability. Air Force studies with captured FW-190's showed P-47D's to be able to out turn and out accelerate them easily (test pilots having to throttle back the P-47 to keep from over-running them in turns, etc).
At an air-show(years ago), I was taking to an old P-51 pilot, and I asked him to compare the P-51 with the P-47. He said it all really depended on altitude, up high the P-47 was supreme.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I wouldn't debate the Ki-100s maneuvering ability, but it should be noted that the P-47 was not really built for exceptional maneuvering. With its powerful engine, armor and guns it was more a flying tank.

But if I'm not mistaken, at high altitude and/or high speed, the P-47 did have exceptional maneuverability. Air Force studies with captured FW-190's showed P-47D's to be able to out turn and out accelerate them easily (test pilots having to throttle back the P-47 to keep from over-running them in turns, etc).
At an air-show(years ago), I was taking to an old P-51 pilot, and I asked him to compare the P-51 with the P-47. He said it all really depended on altitude, up high the P-47 was supreme.

Exactly! High enough and that big wing area coupled with all that horsepower made the P-47 quite nimble. Low enough (ground support) and "niceguy" is correct about the "flying tank". If it had had the range of a P-51 then the Mustang wouldn't have been needed.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I wouldn't debate the Ki-100s maneuvering ability, but it should be noted that the P-47 was not really built for exceptional maneuvering. With its powerful engine, armor and guns it was more a flying tank.

But if I'm not mistaken, at high altitude and/or high speed, the P-47 did have exceptional maneuverability. Air Force studies with captured FW-190's showed P-47D's to be able to out turn and out accelerate them easily (test pilots having to throttle back the P-47 to keep from over-running them in turns, etc).
At an air-show(years ago), I was taking to an old P-51 pilot, and I asked him to compare the P-51 with the P-47. He said it all really depended on altitude, up high the P-47 was supreme.

I am certainly no expert on AC performance and particularly not German AC, though I've picked up a bit here and there. However, my impression was always that the FW-190 was an outstanding all around fighter. There was almost no area of operation where it wasn't "very good" and a few where it was "exceptional". I don't tend to think of it as exceptionally maneuverable, like some Japanese AC, which was the comparison I was really going for.

I had forgotten, but I think you're right Big B. At altitude the P-47 became much more maneuverable. There really weren't an performance areas where it was a dog. However, as a pilot I think what I would appreciate most about the plane is the amount of battle damage it could take and still get you home. In that area it really was nearly unequaled for a fighter.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

... However, my impression was always that the FW-190 was an outstanding all around fighter. There was almost no area of operation where it wasn't "very good" and a few where it was "exceptional". I don't tend to think of it as exceptionally maneuverable, like some Japanese AC, which was the comparison I was really going for.

I had forgotten, but I think you're right Big B. At altitude the P-47 became much more maneuverable. There really weren't an performance areas where it was a dog. However, as a pilot I think what I would appreciate most about the plane is the amount of battle damage it could take and still get you home. In that area it really was nearly unequaled for a fighter.

The FW-190 WAS an exceptional aircraft, and no slouch in any area. The P-47C, as introduced in the ETO, could not compete well with an FW-190 either at air speeds below 250mph or at altitudes below 15,000 feet. However if going faster than 250mph, or at altitudes above 15,000' - the P-47C Thunderbolt did quite well.
What dramatically changed things was the P-47D model which had more HP, and continual improvements in water injection, engine, and propeller (the eventual switch to the "paddle-blade" prop). The basic "D" model had much better performance than the "C" model in all areas, so much so that my above listed comments indicated the new combat capabilities of the early P-47D-4-RE (about Jan 1944).
It's odd that the P-47 is best remembered for the roll it was poorest at - ground attack (though there is no denying it did a terrific job in that role).
If the P-47N had been available in late 1943 (the long range model made for the PTO...over 10 hours of airborne combat time) the vaunted P-51 Mustang would never had been mass produced (it's great advantage in the ETO lay in it's very long range..about like an A6M2 Zero [:D]).

An old P-47 pilot summed up the aircraft best "the Mustang is the one you wanted your picture taken in,...the Thunderbolt was the one you wanted to go to war in".

[Speedysteve]

I'm pretty aux fais on German and US/Japanese aircraft but have never looked in immense depth at Soviet aircraft though. From wehat I have read though aren't both the Yak-3 and LA-7 (in particular) rated as being pretty darn good fighters. Any books/studies on their comparison with Mustang/Spitfire/190D equivalents?

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I'm pretty aux fais on German and US/Japanese aircraft but have never looked in immense depth at Soviet aircraft though. From wehat I have read though aren't both the Yak-3 and LA-7 (in particular) rated as being pretty darn good fighters. Any books/studies on their comparison with Mustang/Spitfire/190D equivalents?

The LA-7 was probably the best Soviet fighter of WWII. Later versions had a top speed of something like 425mph, and I believe it was the only soviet fighter to shoot down ME 262's. I understand it was very maneuverable and had good climb and acceleration too.
I don't believe it was as fast as contemporary P-51's and P-47's (active service models like the P-51H, seeing service in 1945 had a top speed of 480mph, while P-47M also serving in 1945 had a top speed of over 470mph, over 500mph on test models).

But the LA-7 was indeed a very good aircraft none the less.

It seems to me that the later model FW's, Bf-109's, Spitfire's, etc, were all very competitive...and a good pilot would do well in any of them, depending on the circumstances.

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I'm pretty aux fais on German and US/Japanese aircraft but have never looked in immense depth at Soviet aircraft though. From wehat I have read though aren't both the Yak-3 and LA-7 (in particular) rated as being pretty darn good fighters. Any books/studies on their comparison with Mustang/Spitfire/190D equivalents?

The LA-7 was probably the best Soviet fighter of WWII. Later versions had a top speed of something like 425mph, and I believe it was the only soviet fighter to shoot down ME 262's. I understand it was very maneuverable and had good climb and acceleration too.
I don't believe it was as fast as contemporary P-51's and P-47's (active service models like the P-51H, seeing service in 1945 had a top speed of 480mph, while P-47M also serving in 1945 had a top speed of over 470mph, over 500mph on test models).

But the LA-7 was indeed a very good aircraft none the less.

It seems to me that the later model FW's, Bf-109's, Spitfire's, etc, were all very competitive...and a good pilot would do well in any of them, depending on the circumstances.

Yes Big B,La-7 is only Soviet fighter that shoot down Me-262.
And in one incident two P-51 attacks La-7,they mistake it for Me-109. Both P-51 was shoot down in friendly fire with La-7.
That however cannot tell us that La-7 is better plane because in that particular case La-7 is flown by top notch Soviet pilot ace and in P-51 is probably flown by rookies.
These two types of fighters was the best,that is for sure.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: hawker

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I'm pretty aux fais on German and US/Japanese aircraft but have never looked in immense depth at Soviet aircraft though. From wehat I have read though aren't both the Yak-3 and LA-7 (in particular) rated as being pretty darn good fighters. Any books/studies on their comparison with Mustang/Spitfire/190D equivalents?

The LA-7 was probably the best Soviet fighter of WWII. Later versions had a top speed of something like 425mph, and I believe it was the only soviet fighter to shoot down ME 262's. I understand it was very maneuverable and had good climb and acceleration too.
I don't believe it was as fast as contemporary P-51's and P-47's (active service models like the P-51H, seeing service in 1945 had a top speed of 480mph, while P-47M also serving in 1945 had a top speed of over 470mph, over 500mph on test models).

But the LA-7 was indeed a very good aircraft none the less.

It seems to me that the later model FW's, Bf-109's, Spitfire's, etc, were all very competitive...and a good pilot would do well in any of them, depending on the circumstances.

Yes Big B,La-7 is only Soviet fighter that shoot down Me-262.
And in one incident two P-51 attacks La-7,they mistake it for Me-109. Both P-51 was shoot down in friendly fire with La-7.
That however cannot tell us that La-7 is better plane because in that particular case La-7 is flown by top notch Soviet pilot ace and in P-51 is probably flown by rookies.
These two types of fighters was the best,that is for sure.

Well, there you are - shades of Korea coming up with Soviet Mig 15's vs American F-86 Sabres.

I may not make any friends here - but I honestly don't think the last production Japanese fighters were up to the standards of their contemporary allied opponents. For one thing Japanese aviation fuel was poorer. I am given to understand that the late model KI-84 could do about 390mph on Japanese fuel, while captured models (after the war I presume) did well over 400mph with higher octain American av-gas.
By mid-late 1945, it seems to me that the Japanese fighters in the field would always be at a distinct disadvantage in raw HP performance (which does count for a lot). Japanese fighters always seem to have had "light weight/low speed" handling going for them, but to make that decisive you have to have your opponent commit some dumb mistakes...like loosing all of your energy - rookie mistakes really.

An interesting aside on this is to look up immediate post-WWII air combat over Korea, where the best WWII Soviet pilots flew directly against their war-time American allies in "cutting edge" jet combat over Korea. Even though the Americans eventually got the best of the Mig-15 vs F-86 "big league" air combat (rather impressively), when the Soviet First Team was in there- it was a pretty even battle, going both ways at times. The relevance to me is that the two biggies at the end of WWII were pretty well matched in advanced technology and experienced pilots..showing the trend of how WWII was finishing up....super powers baby!

[Ian R]

Didn't they test the Ki-100 with high octane avgas after the war in the US, and it performed well at high altitude as well as low?