Best fighter in WW2???

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Big B

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

Dang it! I was looking for a photo of Joe Louis, when I caught your post. Thougth I was going to be the clever one here..[&o]

[crsutton]

You win wars by projecting air power into enemy airspace. Mustang, for that reason and that reason only.

[MarcA]

I am sure someone brought this up already but didn't the Bf109 get more kills than any other a/c in WWII. Surely that must give it claim to the top spot. It's all very well being faster, more maneuverable and better gunned. But the question is which is the best fighter of WWII and in that competition points mean prizes.

Ask Erich Hartmann. His record must stand for something.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: mantill

I am sure someone brought this up already but didn't the Bf109 get more kills than any other a/c in WWII. Surely that must give it claim to the top spot. It's all very well being faster, more maneuverable and better gunned. But the question is which is the best fighter of WWII and in that competition points mean prizes.

Ask Erich Hartmann. His record must stand for something.

Not to rain on your parade - but wouldn't that line of logic also make the Bf109 "the most shot down plane of WWII" as well?[:'(] ...Just thinking out loud [:D]

No offense here - the 109 is definitely one of the greats.[;)]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: mantill

I am sure someone brought this up already but didn't the Bf109 get more kills than any other a/c in WWII. Surely that must give it claim to the top spot. It's all very well being faster, more maneuverable and better gunned. But the question is which is the best fighter of WWII and in that competition points mean prizes.

Ask Erich Hartmann. His record must stand for something.

Not to rain on your parade - but wouldn't that line of logic also make the Bf109 "the most shot down plane of WWII" as well?[:'(] ...Just thinking out loud [:D]

No offense here - the 109 is definitely one of the greats.[;)]

DOH! [:D]

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: mantill

... didn't the Bf109 get more kills than any other a/c in WWII. Surely that must give it claim to the top spot ...

Yes, but some of the high-scoring aircraft of WW II were simply around longer than the competition -- the 109 was shooting down planes in Spain before the world war officially started -- and were produced in greater numbers; Rainer said 30,000 Bf 109s (all versions) were made.

But I did give the 109 -- and the Zero -- honerable mention.

[BrucePowers]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

bad boyz were the incubators for the allied jets that came on thetail end of the war.

No, actually, they were not. The US and the UK a.c. manufacturers were all well-along in basic design studies and jet engine design before any Allied strategic planner got wind of the ME-262. The specific design of the P-80 was, of course, implemented in response to an rfp issued because of the ME-262, but it was not based on the ME-262 in any way.

In the long run the Lockheed P-80 was a much better design than the ME-262, in that it had much lower drag and better acceleration and turning characteristics. It was, of course, completely not needed by mid-1944, and thus "on the back burner." If the ME-262 had not been such a dog of an aircraft, the US would likely have invested more in its production to bring it to the table in 1944.

"I shrudder to think what large numbers of these "swallows" would have done to allied bombers and their escorts during daylight missions... "

They'd have done very little had Allied escorts of any kind been available. The ME-262s 1944-1945 combat record in daylight ops against escorted bombers was rather poor, resulting in the destruction of on the order of 125 Allied a.c. of all types for more than twice that in ME-262s. The 262's strategic weakness (lack of air-time) was so extreme that it hampered the ME-262 tactically as well, rendering it vulnerable to most of the top-performing piston engined a.c. of the day.

The Luftwaffe would have been much much much better off skipping the ME-262 development process (and several other white elephants) entirely, and sticking to rationalizing and increasing the production of FW-190Ds. Strategically, the FW-190 was a far better aircraft than the ME-262.

Here I have to agree with Mdiehl. 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.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

"I shrudder to think what large numbers of these "swallows" would have done to allied bombers and their escorts during daylight missions... "

They'd have done very little had Allied escorts of any kind been available. The ME-262s 1944-1945 combat record in daylight ops against escorted bombers was rather poor, resulting in the destruction of on the order of 125 Allied a.c. of all types for more than twice that in ME-262s. The 262's strategic weakness (lack of air-time) was so extreme that it hampered the ME-262 tactically as well, rendering it vulnerable to most of the top-performing piston engined a.c. of the day.

The Luftwaffe would have been much much much better off skipping the ME-262 development process (and several other white elephants) entirely, and sticking to rationalizing and increasing the production of FW-190Ds. Strategically, the FW-190 was a far better aircraft than the ME-262.

Weren't almost all of those kills against Me-262's done during Me-262 take off or landing?

If Me-262 (with, and I emphasize, reliable engine) would have been available in 1943 the things might have been different for Germany for a while and it would give them few months (or perhaps a year) of "breathing space" although the end result would be the same - Germany actually lost war the second it attacked Russia - not to mention the UK and USA on the other side...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Fishbed]

I know that this is probably chewed million times but this topic should be interesting.

Which is the best fighter in WW2?
Let jets stay aside in this.

How gosh I don't see KMS Bismarck in the list, is there anything wrong?

[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.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: mantill

I am sure someone brought this up already but didn't the Bf109 get more kills than any other a/c in WWII. Surely that must give it claim to the top spot. It's all very well being faster, more maneuverable and better gunned. But the question is which is the best fighter of WWII and in that competition points mean prizes.

Ask Erich Hartmann. His record must stand for something.

Not to rain on your parade - but wouldn't that line of logic also make the Bf109 "the most shot down plane of WWII" as well?[:'(] ...Just thinking out loud [:D]

No offense here - the 109 is definitely one of the greats.[;)]

Also, how many of those kills were against the VVS in the early days of the war in the East? Or against the disorganised Allies in the early days of 1940?
I can see the point you are making, although I would disagree that more kills mean a better aircraft. The kills are only a truthful indication when flown against an equivalent opponent, such as the defence of the Reich.

[Historiker]

What is the best fighter?
The fighter with the best mixture of range, firepower, agility, price, max altitude, speed, etc? - or is it the fighter, that had the biggest advantege against is opponents in the time it arrived?
In the first case, there can only be the P-51, I guess. Perhaps when you consider firepower and speed, the Me 262 - but that would be unfair to earlier models, no?

In my eyes, the most superiour fighter of WW2 was the A6M2. It's range, speed, agility, firepower was the ultimate best mixture in late 41 and early 42. In Europe it was the Fw 190, but it's range was to short...
To compare a D.520 with a P-51 would be unfair, as a whole generation lies between this planes.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Dixie
The kills are only a truthful indication when flown against an equivalent opponent, such as the defence of the Reich.

How do you arrive to the conclusion that the "defence of the Reich" was against an equivalent opponent? Being outnumbered 10-1 doesnt realy strike me as being equivalent.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

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.

Also let us not forget that the Anselm Franz (chief designer of Junkers Jumo 004 engine that powered Me-262) later went to USA and and was chief designer for several decade lasting engines (like T53 turboshaft engine that powered powered UH-1 Huey helicopter and AGT-1500 for M1 Abrams tank).

Also, the F-86 Sabre of Korea fame fought with more-or-less similar design that Junkers Jumo 004 was based upon (the Rusian MiG-15 was powered by copy of RR Nene - funny how things are [;)])...

Thus the Gemany's problem with jet engines was not design pre se - it was, in essence advanced production problem because good alloys were hard to produce in Germany by that time!


Leo "Apollo11"

[juliet7bravo]

The "Best Fighter" of WW2 was, of course, the Finnish B-239.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Dixie
The kills are only a truthful indication when flown against an equivalent opponent, such as the defence of the Reich.

How do you arrive to the conclusion that the "defence of the Reich" was against an equivalent opponent? Being outnumbered 10-1 doesnt realy strike me as being equivalent.

OK, maybe it wasn't an exactly equivelant exchange [;)]. How about the defence of the Low Countries? Or the battles over the Med? The point I am trying to make is that kills against the early war Soviet types would have been far easier to gain than shooting down Spitfires/Mustangs/P-38s and so on.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

The "Best Fighter" of WW2 was, of course, the Finnish B-239.

considering the kill ratio, you are absolutly right!

[juliet7bravo]

"considering the kill ratio, you are absolutly right!"
 
For a fighter aircraft, all other considerations are just secondary prizes, like "Miss Congeniality".  Unless the question is actually "What was the prettiest fighter of WW2", or "What was the best performing fighter of WW2".
 
But if the question is "What fighter aircraft had the greatest impact on WW2"...it'd have to be the; Spitfire, Mustang, Bf-109, Wildcat, and Zero.  In no particular order.  The Spitfire won the BoB, the Bf-109 almost won the BoB, the Mustang gave the Allies air superiority, Wildcat turned the tide in the Pacific, and the Zero was the great boogeyman of the Pacific for a brief, short period.
 
 

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"considering the kill ratio, you are absolutly right!"

For a fighter aircraft, all other considerations are just secondary prizes, like "Miss Congeniality".  Unless the question is actually "What was the prettiest fighter of WW2", or "What was the best performing fighter of WW2".

But if the question is "What fighter aircraft had the greatest impact on WW2"...it'd have to be the; Spitfire, Mustang, Bf-109, Wildcat, and Zero.  In no particular order.  The Spitfire won the BoB, the Bf-109 almost won the BoB, the Mustang gave the Allies air superiority, Wildcat turned the tide in the Pacific, and the Zero was the great boogeyman of the Pacific for a brief, short period.

I would say the Hurricane won the BoB... the Spitfire is just the plane that shows up in films...

[Yakface]

Not sure you can put it down to either the Hurri or Spitfire on their own.  They were a team - smaller number of Spitfires engaging fighter escorts with the Hurris providing the bulk of the force to stop the bombers (in very simple terms).  Don't think either could have done it on their own - too few spitfires and Hurri being inferior in the dogfight.