the FW190 the best fighter aircraft of WWII....

[irocfan]

A provocative article but interesting - was it the best? Maybe not - surely it could have a claim the being one of the most versatile?

http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-fo...

[dr_gn]

It says it was in service for the entire war, after stating that it first appeared in 1941, so maybe not the best article to base an opinion on. There are hundreds of ww2 aircraft “x vs. x” articles and forum threads, but there usually are so many different contexts to consider that they become pretty meaningless.

[irocfan]

Wacky Racer said:

I'll go for the P51 Mustang or the Spitfire, although the Hawker Hurricane actually shot down more planes in "The battle of Britain".

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/battle-of-br...

to be fair I'd always go for the P51 (even above the Spit). WRT the Hurricane, would it be fair to say that it shot down more planes because there were simply more of them?

[chunder27]

190 was always my favourite along with the P47 for sheer power and brute force.

And I gather there is only one flying with the original BMW motor.

A very rare bird indeed,

I would also put forward the Zero!!

[Vocal Minority]

irocfan said:

to be fair I'd always go for the P51 (even above the Spit). WRT the Hurricane, would it be fair to say that it shot down more planes because there were simply more of them?

Combination of factors.
1).yep there were more as they were quicker to build - with much less pressed metal.
2). The canvas over wood (there is a technical term, but it eludes me ) construction meant they were easier to repair so back in the air quicker after an incident - more time in the air = shoot at more planes
3). The way tactics evolved, it was the Hurricanes who focused on the bombers, whilst Spitfires (generally) kept the fighter escort busy.

I would argue the ease of repair aspect is part of being a 'good fighter plane' personally.

I know the FW190 is rated above contemporary spitfires - no idea how it fares up against later ones.

[Simpo Two]

The Fw190 is a solid candidate. It certainly gave us some problems when it appeared.

But the Zero, no.

I'd place the P51 just above the Spitfire due to its long range capabillity.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Do not forget the Vought F4U Corsair or Lavochkin La-7.

[Turkish91]

That was a fascinating read, which then led me on to another equally good article about the Fairey Swordfish biplanes we used to torpedo the Bismarck!

[FourWheelDrift]

Turkish91 said:

That was a fascinating read, which then led me on to another equally good article about the Fairey Swordfish biplanes we used to torpedo the Bismarck!

Read up on their attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto. We did Pearl Harbour before the Japanese.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto


And arguably the Ta-152 was better than the Fw-190 hope someone gets it without resorting to the usual "but"...

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Tuesday 19th June 10:25

[Halmyre]

dr_gn said:

It says it was in service for the entire war, after stating that it first appeared in 1941, so maybe not the best article to base an opinion on.

US web site...

"The appearance of the new aircraft over France in 1941 was a rude surprise to the Allied air forces."

Plural?

[Pinkie15]

Vocal Minority said:

irocfan said:

to be fair I'd always go for the P51 (even above the Spit). WRT the Hurricane, would it be fair to say that it shot down more planes because there were simply more of them?

Combination of factors.
1).yep there were more as they were quicker to build - with much less pressed metal.
2). The canvas over wood (there is a technical term, but it eludes me ) construction meant they were easier to repair so back in the air quicker after an incident - more time in the air = shoot at more planes
3). The way tactics evolved, it was the Hurricanes who focused on the bombers, whilst Spitfires (generally) kept the fighter escort busy.

I would argue the ease of repair aspect is part of being a 'good fighter plane' personally.

I know the FW190 is rated above contemporary spitfires - no idea how it fares up against later ones.

Not forgetting the positioning of the guns. The Hurricane's grouping of the 4 Browning .303's together meant a "heavier" impact point on the target and thus more damage done for each burst cf the more spaced out arrangement of the guns in the Spitfire's wings

[LotusOmega375D]

The Yak-3 was supposed to be pretty good. I saw one flying out of Sywell on Friday. Seemed quick enough.

[Z06George]

Slightly bias as it's my favourite WWII aircraft but the Hellcat must be up there? Capable against the later Japanese fighters, fast and robust. Later in the war a capable night fighter.

[telecat]

Probably the best for longest is the Spitfire. The design hit a peak with the MK IX and XIV. However the Mustang D and Tempest were also very capable Fighters.

I would say the Best Naval fighter was the Chance Vought Corsair for Me, however the US Navy found it tricky on their carriers.

[Dr Jekyll]

How would the P80 stack up? Just qualifies as having served in WW2 and seems regarded as the most capable of the WW2 jet fighters.

[Deptford Draylons]

I'll go for the Spitfire, partly due to it being there for the UK on day one of the war, and on the last day and still perfectly capable.
P51 and FW190 were later developments, but the Spitfire was developed to at least be on a par with these.

[kurokawa]

I think it is difficult to say which is the best as they all build for specific purpose
Early radial Fw190, Spit especially the griffon powered, P-51, P-47, Yak-3, La-5, Ki-84, F6F and F4U, the list go on. They all built to specific purpose, and like a race we made this then they made that to beat it, and me make something better to beat it. I would say Fw190 one of their finest work horse for their purpose

[Halmyre]

Dr Jekyll said:

How would the P80 stack up? Just qualifies as having served in WW2 and seems regarded as the most capable of the WW2 jet fighters.

Not according to the USAAF in a post-war comparison: "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number (the Me 262A's being at M 0.86), from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."

In addition, the Me 262 had four 30mm cannon against the P-80's six 0.5 calibre machine guns.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Pinkie15 said:

Vocal Minority said:

irocfan said:

to be fair I'd always go for the P51 (even above the Spit). WRT the Hurricane, would it be fair to say that it shot down more planes because there were simply more of them?

Combination of factors.
1).yep there were more as they were quicker to build - with much less pressed metal.
2). The canvas over wood (there is a technical term, but it eludes me ) construction meant they were easier to repair so back in the air quicker after an incident - more time in the air = shoot at more planes
3). The way tactics evolved, it was the Hurricanes who focused on the bombers, whilst Spitfires (generally) kept the fighter escort busy.

I would argue the ease of repair aspect is part of being a 'good fighter plane' personally.

I know the FW190 is rated above contemporary spitfires - no idea how it fares up against later ones.

Not forgetting the positioning of the guns. The Hurricane's grouping of the 4 Browning .303's together meant a "heavier" impact point on the target and thus more damage done for each burst cf the more spaced out arrangement of the guns in the Spitfire's wings

I think most aircraft with guns in the wings, had to have them harmonized so that the bullets or shells would meet/converge at a certain point in front of the aircraft. 303 bullets were not a particularly heavy caliber projectile, and just spraying them around would have little impact on the aircraft being attacked. When one sees the difference between a 20mm canon shell, and a 303 bullet, the effectiveness of each becomes even more apparent. so the only way a series of 303`s were going to damage or destroy an enemy aircraft reliably would be if they were properly harmonized, and the pilot was able to get into the correct distance zone for where his guns were harmonized.

[dr_gn]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Pinkie15 said:

Vocal Minority said:

irocfan said:

to be fair I'd always go for the P51 (even above the Spit). WRT the Hurricane, would it be fair to say that it shot down more planes because there were simply more of them?

Combination of factors.
1).yep there were more as they were quicker to build - with much less pressed metal.
2). The canvas over wood (there is a technical term, but it eludes me ) construction meant they were easier to repair so back in the air quicker after an incident - more time in the air = shoot at more planes
3). The way tactics evolved, it was the Hurricanes who focused on the bombers, whilst Spitfires (generally) kept the fighter escort busy.

I would argue the ease of repair aspect is part of being a 'good fighter plane' personally.

I know the FW190 is rated above contemporary spitfires - no idea how it fares up against later ones.

Not forgetting the positioning of the guns. The Hurricane's grouping of the 4 Browning .303's together meant a "heavier" impact point on the target and thus more damage done for each burst cf the more spaced out arrangement of the guns in the Spitfire's wings

I think most aircraft with guns in the wings, had to have them harmonized so that the bullets or shells would meet/converge at a certain point in front of the aircraft. 303 bullets were not a particularly heavy caliber projectile, and just spraying them around would have little impact on the aircraft being attacked. When one sees the difference between a 20mm canon shell, and a 303 bullet, the effectiveness of each becomes even more apparent. so the only way a series of 303`s were going to damage or destroy an enemy aircraft reliably would be if they were properly harmonized, and the pilot was able to get into the correct distance zone for where his guns were harmonized.

Unless you hit the pilot or any significant part of the cooling/oil system.