Greatest Fighter of WWII?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-05-27 03:29pm

Tribun wrote:I wonder why the Me-262 is not listed.

It was the best fighter of WW II and one of the most famous too......

Possibly but its still got its butt kicked by P-51s and other fighters.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-27 03:37pm

Tribun wrote:I wonder why the Me-262 is not listed.

It was the best fighter of WW II and one of the most famous too......

We all love nine-hour engine life's

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-05-27 03:43pm

phongn wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Easy now, calm down

*Injects Phongn with a liquefied version of the pre 1962 US military aircraft designation system*
USN or USAF?

PHONGN It's USAAF!!

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2003-05-27 04:40pm

I remember reading that, in performance, the Me-262 was superior to its rival, the Gloster Meteor.
But as an operational aircraft, to equip an air force for day-to-day service, the Meteor was the better of the two by quite a margin. It certainly wasn't as fast as the 262, and lacked the fine aerodynamics of the German fighter. But it was reliable, comparitively easy to maintain, relatively easy to fly for even inexperienced pilots, and had similar firepower to the 262 - and it didn't have quite the same appitite for engines.
The handful of Meteor squadrons which served in WW2 were able to do so dependably and with apparently few of the servicability problems which beset their German counterparts.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-05-27 06:26pm

Did any P-80's see action in time?

As for the top ace being a South African, perhaps I am thinking of the top Commonwealth ace. Now I am not sure where I heard that info from. Damn.... it wasa comparison betwene South African and Australian contributions to the war....

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-27 06:42pm

Coyote wrote:PHONGN It's USAAF!!

The USAF existed before 1962 too, ya know :p

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-27 06:43pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
phongn wrote:
USN or USAF?
Both blended with a pinch of Soviet industrial coding, what are you doing still awake?

I've written up entire systems of nomenclature for the ASVS STGOD and a few SDs on SB! Injecting me with the pre-MacNamara system is useless!

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-27 08:22pm

The Me-262 wasn't worth the effort. Thousands were produced, yet they had no effect on the war because the engines just weren't good enough for service. In combat, piloted by aces, their performances weren't the most impressive. The plane was also responsible for killing Walter Nowtowny(sp?) so yeah, I'm not a fan.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2003-05-27 08:45pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Tribun wrote:I wonder why the Me-262 is not listed.

It was the best fighter of WW II and one of the most famous too......
We all love nine-hour engine life's

Indeed. I never researched the matter itself, but would I be correct in assuming that that was due to harmonic vibrations caused by rotating loads of the compressor & turbine blades? Modern jet engines go to some lengths to avoid such resonance effects, up to and including encouraging the use of prime numbers of compressor blades on compressor stages.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-27 08:51pm

Boba Fett wrote:
Atavarius wrote: Lots of Udel info.
His name was Rudel.

There was a fighter pilot called named Udet but I don't remember any Udel.

Ernst Udet was a WWI fighter ace, and the WWII Luftwaffe procurements chief. He committed suicide over the Me 210 fiasco, IIRC.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-27 09:09pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Ernst Udet was a WWI fighter ace, and the WWII Luftwaffe procurements chief. He committed suicide over the Me 210 fiasco, IIRC.

Damn fool thing to kill yourself over- he was not a competent man for his job though.

The Luftwaffe was facing aircraft production problems in 1941- Goering, the idiot, removed Milch from conrol over the production and technical aspects of the Luftwaffe, and Udet, who replaced him, didn't have the technical background or temperament to handle his new responsibilities. At one point, he admitted he new nothing about industrial processes and even less about the engineering of large aircraft. The result was little leadership or guidance to manufacturers. Udet's officies became involved in producing a series of production plans that didn't conform with reality. Disparity between planned production totals and Luftwaffe strength grew ever wider. Over the summer of 1941, Milch supplanted Udet once again, and he had actual understanding of modern production methods and industry practices.

It was his exclusion from the air industry due to his abject failure, as well as Milch's less-than-tactful behavior, that contributed to his suicide in the fall of 1941. The nightmarish situation that Milch discovered in industry and within the offices contributed to Udet's death.

Still, Milch, while he improved the situation, wasn't the best man for the job. He could never get the quantity versus quality thing right:

"Right through 1944, German aircraft posesses the finest upholstered crew seats; thousands of man hours were wasted in amchinging bulk heads and minor fittings, while parts taking no strain or requiring no precision were finished to close tolerances."

Just thought it'd be interesting for people to read that- it's from Strategy for Defeat (a history of the Luftwaffe from 1933-45.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-27 09:29pm

victorhadin wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Tribun wrote:I wonder why the Me-262 is not listed.

It was the best fighter of WW II and one of the most famous too......
We all love nine-hour engine life's
Indeed. I never researched the matter itself, but would I be correct in assuming that that was due to harmonic vibrations caused by rotating loads of the compressor & turbine blades? Modern jet engines go to some lengths to avoid such resonance effects, up to and including encouraging the use of prime numbers of compressor blades on compressor stages.

IIRC, it was poor metalurgy that couldn't take the heat and pressure.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-27 10:29pm

I would like to address a certain issue that some people here have brought up, the armament for the P-51. I really do not see where anyone is comming from saying that it is inferior to say, the p-38. The standard p-51 armament is 6 50cals. the p38 had 4 50s and 1 20mm. This can be said to potentially be equal. Some P-51s were armed with 4 20mm, this is a superior armament to that of the p38.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-27 11:09pm

NapoleonGH wrote:I would like to address a certain issue that some people here have brought up, the armament for the P-51. I really do not see where anyone is comming from saying that it is inferior to say, the p-38. The standard p-51 armament is 6 50cals. the p38 had 4 50s and 1 20mm. This can be said to potentially be equal. Some P-51s were armed with 4 20mm, this is a superior armament to that of the p38.

Not really, as the 20mm was quite a bit better than the usual 0.50-cal in terms of penetration and explosive payload. The 4x20mm P-51 wasn't that common either, and the P-38's nose armament was more concentrated than the wing mounts the Mustang had.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2003-05-28 02:33am

NapoleonGH wrote:I would like to address a certain issue that some people here have brought up, the armament for the P-51. I really do not see where anyone is comming from saying that it is inferior to say, the p-38. The standard p-51 armament is 6 50cals.

6 .50 is weak compared to the typical armament of british or german fighters
in 1944. The M2 has one of the worst power/weight ratio of all WW2 fighter
weapons.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-05-28 03:05am

Thunderfire wrote:
6 .50 is weak compared to the typical armament of british or german fighters
in 1944. The M2 has one of the worst power/weight ratio of all WW2 fighter
weapons.

Indeed:

Ideal fighter armament

20mm cannons, like the Hispano or the ShVAK, were common, and the most efficient.

Striderteen · Post by **Striderteen** » 2003-05-28 05:21am

Boba Fett wrote:While several person said her that the FW-190, especially the A4 version had excellent manouverability I must disagree with it.

The FW-190 A4 -especially at high altitude- could produce sudden "movements". That "error" was slightly corrected at the A9 model.

Green pilots never got FW-190s (of course near the end of the war, when they were short of pilots is another case), they were using the Bf-109 series because it has really smooth handling and no sudden tricks.

Otherwise the FW-190 is my favourite fighter.

While it's heavily armed, it's still pretty fast.

@Vympel: You said a fighter doesn't need armament bigger then 20 mm cannons. (Something like this)

Several german reports said that 20 mm projectile were bouncing of from the IL-2's armor (of course not always) and a B-17 or a B-24 can fly away with a burst of 20 mm bullets in it's belly.

That's where 30 mm cannons do their trick.

That's what later FW-190s were armed with.

Beside the heavy armament, the plane can take quite a lot hit before it went down.
The star-engine itself can take several shot without being out of order.

Overall it's a heavy-duty "warcraft".

It did it's job well.

30mm cannons are ideal for blasting up heavy bombers or shredding tanks, but their lower rate of fire makes them less effective against fighters. The .50-cal machine gun has rate of fire, but lacks hitting power; the 20mm is a good balance.

Of course, the 190 has "all of the above".

Striderteen · Post by **Striderteen** » 2003-05-28 05:26am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Surprised no one mentioned the Typhoon/Tempest even if they were ground attack, they were effective.

The Sea Fury was related to them and served well in Korea too, one of the few prop planes to shoot down a jet.

The Typhoon is powerful but suffers from *major* reliability problems (which is why all of them were retired as soon as the war was over); the Tempest is a much better plane.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-05-29 05:57pm

Coyote wrote:Did any P-80's see action in time?

None saw combat action, but two were deployed in Italy just before V-E Day for final field testing and to prep pilots for their use. They were definitely the best first-gen jet aircraft, able to outperform either the Schwalb or the Meteor, though the Gloster outgunned it (Me262's 4x30mm were anti-bomber guns, but the Meteor's 4x20mm were superior to the P-80's 6x12.7mm).

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-05-30 07:59pm

Can someone enlighten me on the advantages/disadvantages of the F4U vs other fighters? It's the only good looking radial engined fighter.

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2003-05-30 08:15pm

Pu-239 wrote:Can someone enlighten me on the advantages/disadvantages of the F4U vs other fighters? It's the only good looking radial engined fighter.

Pah! The Tempest Mk.II has it shaded in that regard...
And the La-5 and -7. And the Ta-152. And most of the Japanese radials. And the Tigercat.

Atavarius · Post by **Atavarius** » 2003-05-30 09:49pm

Well, i won't go in depth about all the radials mentioned in this thread, but here is some stuff on the Vought F4U Corsair.

Several stumbling blocks developed when carrier trials were held aboard the USS Sangamon and other carriers in late 1941. The biggest problem was the long nose. It stuck out 14 feet (4.27 m) in front of the pilot, and when the Corsair was sitting in take-off position, the nose pointed up at an angle sufficient to block forward vision to about 12º above the horizon. In carrier landings it was practically impossible to see the Landing Signals Officer once the Corsair was lined up with the carrier deck on final approach. Adding to this problem were oil and hydraulic leaks from the engine compartment which seeped past the cowl flaps and smeared the windshield, further restricting visibility. Landing on a carrier deck required the pilot to have the plane at stall speed just as the tail-hook snagged the deck wire, but this was made very difficult by the wicked stall characteristics of the F4U. Just as stall speed was reached, the left wing tended to drop like a rock. In a deck landing this could cause the landing gear to collapse resulting in injuries to the pilot and severe damage to the aircraft. Assuming luck was with the pilot and he landed intact, the Corsair normally "bottomed out" the shock absorbers as it slammed down on the deck. The resulting recoil caused the plane to bounce high in the air. The tailhook itself sometimes failed to "trap" the plane by engaging an arrestor wire. If this happened on a straight deck carrier it usually meant the aircraft plowed into the planes parked forward. It was said on a straight deck carrier there were only two kinds of landings; a "trap" and a catastrophe!

Those are the main ones mentioned, here is a good read on the Corsair.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2003-06-04 06:23am

Montcalm wrote:
Possibly but its still got its butt kicked by P-51s and other fighters.

The P-51 performance wasn't as good as most people think. The best mustang
unit in europe had a kills / dead-mia ratio of 4:1 AFAIK. The death rate of
allied pilots was around 50% this turns this into a 2:1 kill/loss ratio. Subtract
false kills and you get pretty close to a 1:1 kill/loss ratio.

Boba Fett · Post by **Boba Fett** » 2003-06-04 06:36am

Montcalm wrote:
Tribun wrote:I wonder why the Me-262 is not listed.

It was the best fighter of WW II and one of the most famous too......
Possibly but its still got its butt kicked by P-51s and other fighters.

Can you say: Lucky shot?

Truly, some allied veteran pilot who has managed to shot down a Me-262, admitted that they were incredible lucky...not as skillfull.

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2003-06-04 07:44am

Striderteen wrote: 30mm cannons are ideal for blasting up heavy bombers or shredding tanks, but their lower rate of fire makes them less effective against fighters. The .50-cal machine gun has rate of fire, but lacks hitting power; the 20mm is a good balance.

Of course, the 190 has "all of the above".

Rate of fire wasn't the problem of the Mk108 - the speed of the bullet is much
lower compared to 20mm or .50 cal. rounds