Best fighter in WW2???

[niceguy2005]

Or the Buffalo?

We've had at least 1 Buff defender.

I am surprised though at the lack of defense for Japanese aircraft.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Allied high altitude stalwarts like the P-47 and P-51 were vastly superior to the ME-109 (you can pick any variant you want). The best of the German interceptors were all based on the FW-190 design.

*shrug* ok, I pick Me109K-10 vs P-47C.

List your reasons as to why you think the P-47C would be better at high altitude, where a Me109K-10 could fly in circles around it.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Or the Buffalo?

We've had at least 1 Buff defender.

I am surprised though at the lack of defense for Japanese aircraft.

OK then, I choose the J2M. Because it has a cool lightning flash down the side [:D]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:(] Is there no one to defend the Lysander or the whirrawind? Or the the P-400? Or the Buffalo? Or even the Boomerang? Or on the other side of the world , the Defiant? Sad, so sad. [:(]

Yes it's sad - but as Frank Sinatra used to sing - "That's Life..."[:'(]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Or the Buffalo?

We've had at least 1 Buff defender.

I am surprised though at the lack of defense for Japanese aircraft.

OK then, I choose the J2M. Because it has a cool lightning flash down the side [:D]

I'm sure it struck fear into the heart of allied pilots. [;)]


Actually, the Frank didn't make my list of best planes, mainly because they never had the chance to work out the bugs and the pilot pool was so bad for Japan by that time of the war. However, if I were an allied pilot I'm not sure I would want to go 1:1 with a trained Frank pilot.

I also don't think the Zero was the best fighter of WWII, but it was a very good fighter. Same can be said for the Tony.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
I was also such a highly standardized design that massively producing it for lend lease,

You're a Lend Lease design?[X(][;)]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

... However, if I were an allied pilot I'm not sure I would want to go 1:1 with a trained Frank pilot.

All fighter pilots are so aggressive they wouldn't shirk taking on anything - or else they wouldn't be fighter pilots. [;)][:D]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

... However, if I were an allied pilot I'm not sure I would want to go 1:1 with a trained Frank pilot.

All fighter pilots are so aggressive they wouldn't shirk taking on anything - or else they wouldn't be fighter pilots. [;)][:D]

Which I am not, and probably never would be. [:'(]

[mdiehl]

@Pzetc

List your reasons as to why you think the P-47C would be better at high altitude, where a Me109K-10 could fly in circles around it.

At 30-40K feet the P47 was faster, could dive faster, could accelerate faster, could hit harder, could survive damage better, could out roll, out turn, out accelerate, out shine, out luster, and out dance any ME 109 ever made or dreamed of. And then after shredding a few 109s, it could land, reload and bust a train full of nazis with relative impunity compared to any 109.

@Speedy

You're a Lend Lease design?

Heh. Yep, all weather, all terrain, and generally reliable although not optimized for every possible argument! [;)]

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

At 30-40K feet the P47 was faster, could dive faster, could accelerate faster, could hit harder, could survive damage better, could out roll, out turn, out accelerate, out shine, out luster, and out dance any ME 109 ever made or dreamed of. And then after shredding a few 109s, it could land, reload and bust a train full of nazis with relative impunity compared to any 109.

Heh, you seem to hold the same level of knowledge on this subject as the one in the general forum.. Perhaps you missed that I wrote P-47C? Of cource you didnt, but still you must be quoting P-47N specs. Or maybe you are just making stuff up again?

Anyway, lets look at the stats.

P-47C
Entered service in September 1942. Plagued with problems recovering from high-speed dives (severe elevator compression at speeds above 500 mph).

Max speed at 30 000 feet was 353 mph.
Climb rate 2780 feet/min.
Ceiling 42000 feet.

Me 109K-10
Never had time to enter serial production, several prototypes made and some saw combat however. But lets compare with the K-4 that saw plenty of service though. K-4 entered service in October 1944. Already here you should realize just how stupid it is to try to compare the two, since K-4 is an entire generation newer than the P-47C.

Me109K-4
Max speed 445 mph at 25 000 feet
Rate of climb 5 800 feet/min
Ceiling 41 000 feet

So, if we look at these stats, a clear picture emerges. And no mdiehl, that picture is not that the P-47C would outshine the 109. Look at the climb-rate, that btw is also a function of acceleration. In a dogfight, the Me109 is faster and has an enormous climb advantage. That means the Me109K-4 will BnZ the P-47C until its dead.

Roll rates were tricky to find, in fact I could not dig them up with short notice, but we can look at sustained turn instead. The P-47C takes 25.5 seconds to do a 360 at 332 kph, the Me 109K-4 takes 21.5 seconds. Now, I know that this is not the same as roll-rate, but it gives an indication of general agility of the aircraft (for comparrison the number for the Zero is 18 seconds, and Spitfire I takes 19 seconds).

So, we have the Me109 K-4 being faster, better turn rate, much much better climb rate. Despite this you sit here and yap about the P-47C dancing around the Me 109K-4 at altitiude? That leaves two options. You either dont know what you are talking about, or you are making s hit up to fit your argument. Which is it?

[Mike Scholl]

Jaeger. You are "salting" the claim and playing "apples and oranges". You want to compare the late 1942 version of one A/C with the late 1944 version of another. By this logic, the P-47 could also be better because it's late '42 version was better than the late 1940 version of the Bf-109.

You guys need to pick choices from the same time frames before you start brandishing statistics at each other.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
before you start brandishing statistics at each other.

Yes, please there could be children about. [;)]

[mdiehl]

Look at the climb-rate, that btw is also a function of acceleration.

Incorrect. It's a function of weight, airspeed, aerodynamics, and current altitude. Once again, was it a nice friendly contest where an ME-109K combat loaded were lifting off next to a P47 combat loaded, the ME-109 would win a race to altitude. It means nothing, because in 1944-1945, the general tendency was meeting engagements. At high alttiude the ME-109K was a pig. At 38,000 feet, the P-47 was, by comparison, nimble.

And yes, early P-47s had compressibility problems at speeds in excess of 500 mph. Face it, 500+mph was a mark that few powers actually had to worry about crossing. By comparison, the weak-kneed ME-109 couldn't make 500+mph in a dive (also because of compressibility problems) EVER. The ME-109K was real cute at 390mph below 30K feet, until it tried to dive away from a Jug. Then the ME-109K driver would learn why heavy poor-low altitude climbers were, well, HEAVY -- something to do with surviving a pounding under enemy fire, and why it may not have been the best fraking production decision to stick laminated wooden props on those 109s.

[Shawkhan]

...It should be obvious to anyone that the best fighter of WWII will be one of the last designs. Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the best fighter at various points in the war? The best fighter at December 7, 1941, the best fighter of 1942, etc. A plane should be compared to the other fighters it would most probably meet in combat at any given time.

[BrucePowers]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

[:(] Is there no one to defend the Lysander or the whirrawind? Or the the P-400? Or the Buffalo? Or even the Boomerang? Or on the other side of the world , the Defiant? Sad, so sad. [:(]

No, just truthful..

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Look at the climb-rate, that btw is also a function of acceleration.

Incorrect. It's a function of weight, airspeed, aerodynamics, and current altitude.

LOL no s hit?

Here you go buddy, see if you can follow this:
a = Force / mass
RoC = Force * TAS / Weight

(Weight = mass * g)

g = gravitational constant (32.2 feet/s^2)

All you have to do to convert a climb rate into an acceleration (at the climb speed), is to mutiply by g and divide by TAS.

A plane that will climb at 50 feet/s, with climb speed of say 220 feet/s, will have an instantaneous acceleration of

50 * 32.2 / 220 = 7.3 feet/s^2

Once again, was it a nice friendly contest where an ME-109K combat loaded were lifting off next to a P47 combat loaded, the ME-109 would win a race to altitude. It means nothing, because in 1944-1945, the general tendency was meeting engagements. At high alttiude the ME-109K was a pig. At 38,000 feet, the P-47 was, by comparison, nimble.

LOL, you are just making this up as you go along, dont you?

Well, lets see what the charts say, shall we?

Me 109 K-4 here







P-47C data found here







Let me know if you need an explanation on how to read those charts btw.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

...It should be obvious to anyone that the best fighter of WWII will be one of the last designs. Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the best fighter at various points in the war? The best fighter at December 7, 1941, the best fighter of 1942, etc. A plane should be compared to the other fighters it would most probably meet in combat at any given time.

Well, yes and no. Several fighters mentioned here existed throughout the war. Like the Spit. It is pretty hard to pin down the "best fighter". In truth several fighters were very good and about equal in performance. Late war fighter planes do have the advantage of newer technology, but then some of what are considered the best early war fighters simply benefited from flying against planes that were obsolete. The Zero vs the Buf or the Zero vs the P-36 comes to mind.

[undercovergeek]

id say an allied plane, especially to panzerjaeger......
 
because if german or japanese ones were that good, we'd all be speaking german or japanese
 
and we're not! [:D]
 
 
 

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

id say an allied plane, especially to panzerjaeger......

because if german or japanese ones were that good, we'd all be speaking german or japanese

and we're not! [:D]

Very true. That is because the argument about the best airframe is pointless in the absence of discussing other equally important aspects such as organization, numbers, mainenance, training, logistics, etc.

In other forums, I've seen passionate people almost come to blows over which tank is best, or which rifle is tops. When viewed in isolation, such arguments are almost humorous to observe. In isolation, you might just as well be arguing over which flavor of ice cream is best.

Regards,
Feltan

[okami]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek

id say an allied plane, especially to panzerjaeger......

because if german or japanese ones were that good, we'd all be speaking german or japanese

and we're not! [:D]

Very true. That is because the argument about the best airframe is pointless in the absence of discussing other equally important aspects such as organization, numbers, mainenance, training, logistics, etc.

In other forums, I've seen passionate people almost come to blows over which tank is best, or which rifle is tops. When viewed in isolation, such arguments are almost humorous to observe. In isolation, you might just as well be arguing over which flavor of ice cream is best.

Regards,
Feltan

T-34, M-1 Garande. Best fighter Ta-152. Oh and Butterscotch!!! Hands down it's Butterscotch.