Matrix Games Forums

well glad I didn't put my bi-focal specs on for that last post

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

OEh, that's pretty sweeping statement. I'm glad you speak for the world at large.

In this instance I'm confident that I'm doing a really good job representing the vast majority of the world. The claim that the 229 was a "great" or even "very good" airplane warrants filing with the claims of Bigfoot researchers, ET-alien-abductees, and flat earthers.

I have to agree with mdiehl here the brewsters were outclassed at the outbreak of the war by all the modern aircaft designs. If they were any good the us wouldn't have dropped them like a rock in favor of the wildcat(which definatly wasn't a world beater it's self). they just went up against ancient russian equipement when the war started out.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

took care of all the shoddy US workmanship

The workmanship was characteristic of Brewster Aircraft Company, not of the US. That is why Brewster's operations were, unique among American a.c. manufacturers, nationalized and then handed over (IIRC) to GM management.

Um technically didn't they go bankrupts and the us then nationalized them. They were the only aircraft manufacturer in the us to go out of business during world ware 2

What was the best fighter in World War II ?....there is no easy answer. It really depended on the mission at hand.

Long Range Escort - P-51
Ground Attack - P-47
Bomber Interceptor - ME-262
Carrier Fighter - F4U
High Altitude Interceptor - FW-190D

I would nominate the P-38L (if I had to choose just one)....it was a fantastic multi-tasker.[;)]

http://www.jibjab.com/view/214450

1939 - Bf 109D
1940 - Spitfire I
1941 - A6M2 Zero
1942 - Fw 190A5
1943 - P-38F
1944 - Fw 190D9
1945 - ?

the P40 was a nice plane with a superb roll rate and high speed for early war planes at medium altitude plus good initial dive acceleration, I've always thought it would have made an excellent carrier plane.

However when compared to the 109 its rate of climb and performance at altitude sucked, which is why in north africa they were used in low level ground attack mission, while hurricanes were used as top cover both were outclassed vs the bf109 F trop but the hurricane less so at altitude.

later on after torch the USAAF used spitfires & P40's in combination.

as far as best aeroplane goes I' think that spits & 109's were dominant / competitive during the war which no other planes can match

otherwise we can start splitting the war up into periods & theaters

However efficient GCI radar and crushing numerical superiority were two of the biggest contributers to victory in the air

Cheers

ORIGINAL: Hipper


the P40 was a nice plane with a superb roll rate and high speed for early war planes at medium altitude plus good initial dive acceleration, I've always thought it would have made an excellent carrier plane.

However when compared to the 109 its rate of climb and performance at altitude sucked, which is why in north africa they were used in low level ground attack mission, while hurricanes were used as top cover both were outclassed vs the bf109 F trop but the hurricane less so at altitude.

Interesting - the according to the Bloody Shambles series, the Hurris were pretty useless at high altitude, and consistently failed to intercept anything flying high, while the P-40s were moderately successful at it... but this was a bit later in the war (1943) so that the P-40 models might have been/were probably different than the ones in North Africa.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

... If whole WWII is taken into account then, IMHO, there are only two (yes two!) clear winners:

Messerschmitt Me-109
Supermarine Spitfire

... Both of them were top of the line when WWII started and they were not obsolete when it ended (they were still very much "competitive")...
Leo "Apollo11"

Interesting choice; these two planes together probably have the most Mks and variants of any other two WW II planes combined, even if they were "top of the line" when they first entered service.

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

Actually, the P40 was on par with every contemporary Spitfire and 109 model, and its logical to assume that if the P40 had been continually upgraded like the Spitfires and 109's through 43 and into 44 and 45, that it would have stayed on par.

Actually the P40 while a solid AC suffered from an inferior (compared to mid and late war planes) airframe design. The aerodynamics of the frame hampered the performance. You could keep upgrading the engine but it brought seriously diminishing returns. To a lesser extent the 109 had the same problems. Aerodynamics was not a well understood science until after the war started. Many of the best aerodynamsists of the time were German.

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

What was the best fighter in World War II ?....there is no easy answer. It really depended on the mission at hand.

Long Range Escort - P-51
Ground Attack - P-47
Bomber Interceptor - ME-262
Carrier Fighter - F4U
High Altitude Interceptor - FW-190D

I would nominate the P-38L (if I had to choose just one)....it was a fantastic multi-tasker.[;)]

Good suggestion IMO. But what about air superiority fighter...what about when you absolutely, positively had to just kill everything in the sky?

Good suggestion IMO. But what about air superiority fighter...what about when you absolutely, positively had to just kill everything in the sky?

The clear winner is the Vought F4U 'Corsair.'

For "bomber busting" I'd take an FW-190 or a Bell P63 Kingcobra.

Air superoirity......hmm.

FW-190 D-12

This is the D9 variant

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Good suggestion IMO. But what about air superiority fighter...what about when you absolutely, positively had to just kill everything in the sky?

The clear winner is the Vought F4U 'Corsair.'

For "bomber busting" I'd take an FW-190 or a Bell P63 Kingcobra.

I think the Corsair would be a fine choice.

I don't know a lot about the P63, but what I read suggested that it still suffered from poor high altitude performance, which, depending on the situation good be a big problem for an interceptor.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers
The engines in the ME262 were only good for 25 to 50 hours of operation before a tear down and complete rebuild were required. This means each aircraft would have had to have at least 4 engines to keep it in the air. The personnel and equipment costs would have been huge.

Actually the design of the engines was a councious desicion. By 43-44, Germany was sorely lacking strategic minerals (tungsten, zinck, etc) and therefore the desicion was made to build the engines of weaker materials (steel instead of tungsten etc). That way it was possible to build lots more of them and then just switch the entire engine when it had reached the end of its operational life. So, instead of having fewer engines with lifespans of thousands of hours, they had alot of engines with short lifespan.

I dont think that was a poor design desicion.

I did not say it was a poor design decision. I just said it was going to be a maintence headache requiring highly trained personnel and lots of GSE (Ground Support Equipment).

It may have been the only way to go.

Hard to know. The P63 did have a multistage turbosupercharger, a laminar flow wing, a max level flight airspeed of around 400 mph, and a service ceiling of 43K feet. I'm guessing that with the laminar wing and that sort of airspeed and service ceiling it's upper altitude performance must have been decent. Still, I doubt that it was as good a dogfighter as the F4U, FW190, or P-51.

I like it as a bomber buster primarily because of it's 37mm.

If we're on about a pure bomber destroyer with no elements of risk from escorts i'd have to say something German made (since these guys had to design mid-late war stuff to counter heavies). In that case some of the Hornisse variants with their 30MM cannon Paks or the 1908/R8. LOL even remember that crazy Hornisse with the 50MM Pak gun attached (now that is crazy and wholely un-suited IMO to successful air combat).

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Hard to know. The P63 did have a multistage turbosupercharger, a laminar flow wing, a max level flight airspeed of around 400 mph, and a service ceiling of 43K feet. I'm guessing that with the laminar wing and that sort of airspeed and service ceiling it's upper altitude performance must have been decent. Still, I doubt that it was as good a dogfighter as the F4U, FW190, or P-51.

I like it as a bomber buster primarily because of it's 37mm.

I knew it had the turbocharger, which was the knock I have always heard against the P-39. However, what I read said that it still had problems at altitude. I'd like to read up more on it though before I start claiming for a fact that it's true.

It's true that all an interceptor really needs is speed, great climb rate and lots of firepower.

what I read said that it still had problems at altitude. I'd like to read up more on it though before I start claiming for a fact that it's true.

Agreed. I was simply making an inference based on its top airspeed (which seems to have been 410 mph), the presence of a multistage TSC, and its service ceiling. It's pretty difficult to get a piston-engined a.c. up to 400 mph at lower altitudes, because of drag. It's climb rate was typical of a heavy late war US fighter. 2500 feet per minute is the usual given figure. Of course, the climb rate must have varied by altitude and speed, so how it climbed at high altitude is hard to know.

The USSR used them primarily in ground attack and low altitude combat. But then, the USSR pretty much used EVERYTHING for relatively low-altitude combat. The only nations who had to deal with a credible high-altitude strategic bomber threat were Germany, Italy, and Japan. Of course you know that, but my point is that Eastern Front usage probably won't tell us much about the P-63s capability.

@Speedy -- of course the problem with the ME-410 was that it was generally as vulnerable to B-17s as the 17s were to it. What the hornisse needed was an effective guided a2a missile.

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
...What the hornisse needed was an effective guided a2a missile.

Haha! Exactly what I was thinking as I wrote the post above. What better interceptor than a missile. Fast, high rate of climb and lots of firepower. Range being the only problem.