WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Stats for the P-51:
4,950 aircraft shot down (about half of all USAAF claims in the European theater), 4,131 destroyed on the ground.
840 Mustangs lost
Kill to Loss Ratio, 11:1

You can remove any fighter from the war and it won cause much of a difference. But remove the Mustang and the entire Round the Clock Bombing Campaign falls down. No other fighter had such an impact on the war as the Mighty Mustang.

This is where these discussions often break down : )

[Edit : Clarification, I actually like the P-51, think it was an outstanding plane with great looks, not sold that it was the "Best" ]

As for numbers of enemy aircraft killed and kill:loss ratios, the Hellcat beats the Mustang in # kills, % of enemy aircraft killed and K:L ratio. However, no one would argue for the Hellcat, and it likely would not have measured up in Europe.

The problem I have with the bomber escort argument is simple. Not only were there other aircraft that could do that role, even with some fall off, but that means the fighter's capability is linked to the presence of an effective bomber.

IF the P-51D was developed and in service with Russia, Italy, Germany, Japan- same performance, different flag, then without those B-17 bombers and strategic bombing campaign would it still count as "Best"? Shouldn't the "Best" fighter be such regardless of if it's home air force has a specific niche for it?

Everyone can use Air Superiority, so the Spitfire still looks good, even without the range (which some versions had). And the sheer number of marks speaks to the basic versatility of the design, which began and ended the war with great performance.

The P-39 is an interesting choice, supposedly quite good down low, though I've read the 37mm lacked oomph. I'd say the elevation limitation is too much. I think it's hard to argue it as "Best" when some airforces passed it on rather than jealously try to keep it for themselves.

Now, back to my entry : )

While the F4U did have initial problems as a carrier fighter, it performed fine from land. Think of it as a land fighter that wound up being used on carriers as well- real versatility : ), like the Seafire variant of the Spit.

The F4U-1A Corsairs were almost as fast as the P-51Ds, while the F4U-4 was faster. With internal fuel they had a slightly longer range (as far as I can determine) than the P-51Ds and made excellent fighter bombers as well.

Big, fast, well armed, versatile, served through half the war and into the 1960s with France. At least a candidate.

As for the Centurion tank, I wouldd say it was the best built during WWII, but was not in sufficiently in service to count of WWII.

Curious, I tried a Google for "best fighter wwii", the first link was Chuck Hawks best fighter planes of WWII which has his opinions as well as a number of articles on various planes. The articles may be gray lit, but are of passing interest. http://www.chuckhawks.com/index3.naval_military_history.htm

Yes the Hellcat shot down more, but it was against obsolete flying Phillip...err Japanese lighters. The Mustang did it against aircraft which are according to RA are among the best. The Mustang also shot down more than any other Allied plane in the ETO.

The P-51D in German or Japanese hands could have made a difference. Especially over the vast Pacific and Russian front. And the P-51A in the BoB.

The range also gives the P-51 much greater flexibility. The Spitfire couldn't do more than look pretty for much of the war due to its range. The P-51 was even tried as a carrier fighter but the capture of Iow Jima eliminated that need.

Now the P-51H would have beaten the pants off just about any other fighter...


The P-39 had lots of potential, unfortunately the decision to remove the Turbocharger effectively killed it. Its central engine gave it less rotational inertia and it could have been a deadly fighter with a good engine.

I'd say its a tie, Spitfire and Mustang. Both had exceptional qualitys for their respective roles.

Spits didn't need the range, and Mustangs had the speed to hit and run, same as the Hellcats.

FW-190 is also a exceptional fighter.

Tanks I also like the Centurion though the Pershing was also a nice peice of work. Unfortunately the war winners came in the form of the M4 "tommycooker" Shermans and T-34's produced in mass quanity's.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
The P-39 had lots of potential, unfortunately the decision to remove the Turbocharger effectively killed it. Its central engine gave it less rotational inertia and it could have been a deadly fighter with a good engine.

Not really, that and its undeserved reputation in the west killed it there. It was after all one of the most sucessfull fighters in the east.

About the P-51, i am a bit surprised no one has said anything about what i consider to be its largest flaw, its lack of good armament. While six wing mounted 13mm MGs were bearly adquate against enemy fighters, it really lacked punch against anything bigger. The P-51 would have been more efficient with 4x20mm guns instead, both against fighters and bomber.

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Armament was a problem for all the US fighters.

P-51H doesn't look so good compared to other late war fighters like Fury, Spiteful or P72. Of course it doesn't come close to the ultimate Spitfire in the Type 391 (RR Eagle engine)

For me the best fighter is the Reggiane 2005

Speed similar to the rest of the bunch, good at low level. Climbs like a lift. Superb handling, better in tight turns than the Spit. Excellent armament from 3x20mm and 2x12.7mm and lots of rpg for the cannons. Excellent diving ability, probably best of the period - up to 620mph tested without encountering compressibility effects. Excellent load carrying capability, up to 1320kg on three hardpoints. Very durable structure and able to take very high stresses. Quite some performance from 1350hp.

The follow on Re 2006 was completed in September 43 but not flown. It mounted a DB603 engine and revised radiators. Speed would have been around 460mph.

My interpretation of "best" would include availability, only 48 Reggiane 2005 fails to compair to the 20,334 Spits, not including the seafire variant.

If we are talking strictly a 1 on 1 basis things would certainly be different.

I don´t know what the fuzz is about.

The only two pilots to shoot down more than 300 enemy planes each did so on the Bf109. Hartmann preferred her over any other german (like 190) or allied plane (like captured P-47 or P-51). Gerhard Barkhorn (and his wingman) lead the FW190-equiped JG6 in BF109s. Speaks volumes, methinks, and is as useful an argument as any other.

(A sad side note: Of 28000 trained fighter pilots of the Luftwaffe only 1400 survived the war. It was not a matter of quality, it was all about quantity in the end. So musing about the "best fighter" probably says nothing...)

Excellent point, Hooman. I totally agree.

I'll throw in the Bristol Beaufighter. Loads of firepower (4x20mm 6x7.7mm) and can carry a torepedo, bombs or rockets on later marks. Became nightfighter for a time too.

Nothing like it for blasting ships and land targets.

Mind you a fighter-bomber Mosquito is just as good, then there's the DH Hornet...oh stop it I could list loads of fighters.

On another board we did a comparison by the numbers. Here is the top twenty

Multiplies (pounds per engine) by (HP per pound) by (top speed) by (number of engines) by (Ceiling) by by (1 / wing loading) to get the figure of merit.

* denotes limited production

1. Supermarine Seafire XV
2. Tachikawa Ki-94 *
3. Mikoyan-Gurevich I-225 *
4. Kawasaki Ki-10 (wing loading and power loading help with this one)
5. Mikoyan-Gurevich I-222*
6. Yakovlev Yak-9U
7. Mikoyan-Gurevich I-224 / MiG-7 *
8. Hawker Typhoon Mk IB
9. Supermarine Spitfire Mk V / IX
10. Nakajima Ki-43 III Hayabusa (maneuverability again)
11. Renard R-37 *
12. Yakovlev Yak-3
13. Bloch MB.157 * (this shouldn't be here due to incorrect max speed used)
14. Supermarine 327 *
15. Messerschmitt Me 209 *
16. Mikoyan-Gurevich I-211 *
17. Goodyear F2G
18. Supermarine Spiteful
19. Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden *
20. Lavochkin La-7

Whatever it was designed for the Mustang wound up hanging its hat on a very specialised niche role - long range bomber escort (penetration fighter). Thunderbolts escorted bombers, shot down V-1s, excelled in the fighter-bomber role, and would have been the preferred anti-kamikaze mount (P-47N) had the war continued.

A major flaw in the P-51 is the liquid-cooled engine. You're vunerable to the golden BB, and the positioning of the radiator makes the plane a death trap if you have to ditch.

Also, the P-47 has a better pedigree. The P-51's ancestors were...err...and it has the P-82, F-86 and F-100 as decendents. The Sabre's reputation comes from the same niche as the 'Stang - long range fighting. The Jug, on the other hand, grew from the SEV-3/SEV-2 which evolved into the P-35 (the first truly modern USAAC fighter), the P-43 (via XP-41), and gave birth to the XP-72 (would have been an excellent plane but, alas, there were too many Mustangs), F-84, F-105 and A-10.

Legacy: the P-51 produced the Piper Enforcer. The P-47 left us the Warthog. 'Nuff said.

So if P-47 > P-51, the Mustang obviously isn't in the running for best piston-engined fighter of WW2. Next! I'd have to agree that the Fw 190 has a very strong case.

The Mustang served with distinction in the MTO as a fighter bomber (A-36), it also served in this role in Korea when the Jets just couldn't handle the long range required.

Actually the Mustang's decendant would have been the F-108 and the XB-70, nuff said! Those babys actually flew, not like the A-10 which was repulsed by the ground. (I too am a Warthog fan, but trowing dirt on the Mustang? no way!)

Germans had such high kill counts because they kept flying, and flying, and flying, plus they had plenty of easy targets in Russia. The Mustang Aces did it against these very smae pilots flying the Me 109s. That speaks volums about the Mustang.


There are other good planes out there. The F4U, FW-190, P-47M (not the N), Tempest, but the Mustang is simply the best.

So far I haven't seen your argument of why the P-51 is best. Its not the fastest, not the most maneuverable, not the most heavily armed, not the fastest climber, not the longest ranged etc. what it does have going for it is a massive numerical advantage.

Yet it had the best blend of all those qualities. Faster than the equivalent Spitfire variant, it achive its speed not to brute power (like the P-47 or F8F) but throught good aerodynamics. Its maneuverability was more than adequate, it was easy to fly (not like the Spitfire), armament was a weak point but against fighters it was adequate. And it had the range to take the fight to the enemy. It had just the right aount of everything.

It was available in numbers when needed and fought with distinction in 2 wars. It had the highest number of kills of any Allied aircraft in the ETO and it did this against the best the Luftwaffe had to offer. Few fighters can say the same thing.

Again we get onto the definition of "best"


Next question;

Best jet fighter of the war?

Might be easier to answer considering there are fewer types to argue over.

I perfer Adolph Galland myself with his thoughts on jet fighters.

I like the P-38 myself, but I can't classify a best in the War...too many variables.

But then I like the bf-110.

I've generally preferred the P-47 over the P-51 (in combat simulators) due to its ability to take damage, as I'm not as skilled in a dogfight, but with a craft that can take a few hits, I can get around to take on the bf-109s and FW-190s.

I also always took a Hurricane over the Spitfire during the Battle of Britian. (Lucasarts)

Flight simulators. I used to play with CFS2 and CFS3. In CFS3 with the Tempest V I found it was possible to beat anything on the hardest level of difficulty. Tempest V vs. 8xP80s got interesting but still winnable. This is either down to faults in the game or the fact that I've logged far too many hours on flight sims.

For me the definition of "best" is a plane with good all around performance that actually made a difference in the war.

Best jet? P-80 Shooting Star. Didn't fight in WWII, but fought in Korea. Performance equivalent to Me 262, but with a single engine, manuverability should be better. Made a hell of a good fighter bomber too. And is still in service as the T-33.

For me "best" is the aircraft most likely to win in a 1-on-1 fight against another fighter given equal pilot quality. In this, the P-51 loses out.

I'm not sure why having 1 engine is an advantage for the P-80.

Its hard to argue against the Meteor as it was the only really reliable example put into production. The F.4 flying in mid 45 with uprated engines and clipped wings was superior to the Me 262, Vampire and P-80 in speed, range and handling. Of course the Me 262 was a frozen design from 1944 and the improved versions were never flown.

Simple Physics, one engine in fuselage reduces the rotational inertia of having two engines in the wings, this translates into better manueverability.