the FW190 the best fighter aircraft of WWII....
Discussion
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.
My initial reaction would be the P-51 but it only saw a few years of war service so is that really the best aircraft of the "whole" of WW2?
I think I'd have to go with the Spitfire in it's various guises for it's abilities during the whole '39-'45 timespan - from simple .303 initial fighter setup to a multi-role setup with .50 cals, 20mm cannons with rockets and bombs and even sea based Carrier/Catapult versions - all of which puts it ahead as a platform than the P-51 for me (I know the P-51 also had bombs/rockets).
I think I'd have to go with the Spitfire in it's various guises for it's abilities during the whole '39-'45 timespan - from simple .303 initial fighter setup to a multi-role setup with .50 cals, 20mm cannons with rockets and bombs and even sea based Carrier/Catapult versions - all of which puts it ahead as a platform than the P-51 for me (I know the P-51 also had bombs/rockets).
IanH755 said:
My initial reaction would be the P-51 but it only saw a few years of war service so is that really the best aircraft of the "whole" of WW2?
I think I'd have to go with the Spitfire in it's various guises for it's abilities during the whole '39-'45 timespan - from simple .303 initial fighter setup to a multi-role setup with .50 cals, 20mm cannons with rockets and bombs and even sea based Carrier/Catapult versions - all of which puts it ahead as a platform than the P-51 for me (I know the P-51 also had bombs/rockets).
I was thinking "there is no useful answer to this" but reading this I think I'd have to agree. The (surprising) versatility of the Spitfire sets it apart from just about anything else, regardless that other machines may have more range, firepower, speed or whatever.I think I'd have to go with the Spitfire in it's various guises for it's abilities during the whole '39-'45 timespan - from simple .303 initial fighter setup to a multi-role setup with .50 cals, 20mm cannons with rockets and bombs and even sea based Carrier/Catapult versions - all of which puts it ahead as a platform than the P-51 for me (I know the P-51 also had bombs/rockets).
Yertis said:
IanH755 said:
My initial reaction would be the P-51 but it only saw a few years of war service so is that really the best aircraft of the "whole" of WW2?
I think I'd have to go with the Spitfire in it's various guises for it's abilities during the whole '39-'45 timespan - from simple .303 initial fighter setup to a multi-role setup with .50 cals, 20mm cannons with rockets and bombs and even sea based Carrier/Catapult versions - all of which puts it ahead as a platform than the P-51 for me (I know the P-51 also had bombs/rockets).
I was thinking "there is no useful answer to this" but reading this I think I'd have to agree. The (surprising) versatility of the Spitfire sets it apart from just about anything else, regardless that other machines may have more range, firepower, speed or whatever.I think I'd have to go with the Spitfire in it's various guises for it's abilities during the whole '39-'45 timespan - from simple .303 initial fighter setup to a multi-role setup with .50 cals, 20mm cannons with rockets and bombs and even sea based Carrier/Catapult versions - all of which puts it ahead as a platform than the P-51 for me (I know the P-51 also had bombs/rockets).
dr_gn said:
Is the Spitfire one aircraft, or several? Apart from fasteners etc, did the Mk.1 share any parts with the last version to see service in WW2?
Don't know about parts, but it did have basically the same wing design with the subtle twist at the tip which some authorities say was what made the Spitfire so effective.That wing was starting to get a bit draggy by the middle of the war and Supermarine designed a development with a new lower drag wing and a modified fuselage to allow the pilot to see better over the increasingly long engines. But this was sufficiently different to be called the Spiteful. The low speed handling wasn't as good as the Spitfire though, and limiting mach number actually lower.
Messerschmitt Bf 109 ?
The Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring German fighter aces of World War II, who claimed 928 victories among them.
More of these built than any other fighter (34,852),
and 3rd on the "most produced" list behind
The Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring German fighter aces of World War II, who claimed 928 victories among them.
More of these built than any other fighter (34,852),
and 3rd on the "most produced" list behind
- 2 Ilyushin Il-2 (36,183) and
- 1 Cessna 172 (44,000+)
dr_gn said:
Is the Spitfire one aircraft, or several? Apart from fasteners etc, did the Mk.1 share any parts with the last version to see service in WW2?
It's a good question although you could argue the same re 109s or FW 190s. The Spit continuously and almost seamlessly evolved. If you look at a MkI and a Mk24 (as I know you have done ) they are very different machines. But if you look at the individual marks the changes are quite subtle. Almost no external difference between a MkII, a MkV and a MkIX, the MkXII is a MkIX (or was it a MkV?) with a Griffon and IIRC bigger fin, the MkXIV is a fine-tuned MkXII and so on. Also I think (may be wrong) that it's the only fighter of all of WW2 – all the others were just built during bits of it.Yertis said:
Also I think (may be wrong) that it's the only fighter of all of WW2 – all the others were just built during bits of it.
I think the BF109 may have been built until VE day, a few were certainly assembled afterwards as the Avia S199 and the Buchon.But the Spitfire was the only one in use before the war that was still a serious contender for 'best fighter' up until 1945.
I'd say anything with a big air cooled radial is in with a shout, the F4U, the Grumman 'cats' or the FW190 had the right blend of speed and firepower. A special mention too for the Hawker Sea Fury, too late for WWII but did manage to bag a couple of Migs during the Korean war.
Liquid cooling is great but as the USAF found out in Korea it only takes a single rifle calibre bullet in the wrong place to bring down a P-51, there were cases of P-47's coming back from Berlin minus a cylinder head or two!
As combat speeds increased the pilots needed the ability to do more damage with fewer hits so either cannon or a combination of machine guns and cannon. The 4x 30mm cannon on the Me262 packed a real punch but were a bit slow with their rate of fire, the FW190's combination of 13mm machine guns and faster shooting 20mm cannon were probably about right for rate/weight of fire.
The Spitfire was a bit of design genius though, as Rolls Royce gave Vickers/Supermarine more power it just went higher and faster with bigger guns, the mark of a brilliant design isn't how good it is in it's intended role but how much you can 'abuse' the original design and still have it perform, think RR Merlin, C-130 or Cosworth DFV
Or DeHavilland Mosquito...
Liquid cooling is great but as the USAF found out in Korea it only takes a single rifle calibre bullet in the wrong place to bring down a P-51, there were cases of P-47's coming back from Berlin minus a cylinder head or two!
As combat speeds increased the pilots needed the ability to do more damage with fewer hits so either cannon or a combination of machine guns and cannon. The 4x 30mm cannon on the Me262 packed a real punch but were a bit slow with their rate of fire, the FW190's combination of 13mm machine guns and faster shooting 20mm cannon were probably about right for rate/weight of fire.
The Spitfire was a bit of design genius though, as Rolls Royce gave Vickers/Supermarine more power it just went higher and faster with bigger guns, the mark of a brilliant design isn't how good it is in it's intended role but how much you can 'abuse' the original design and still have it perform, think RR Merlin, C-130 or Cosworth DFV
Or DeHavilland Mosquito...
There is no correct answer to this as the definition is far too loose, to answer this properly you need to also define what engagement/role you want to perform against what type of opposition and at what ranges and altitudes but these changed over time in the various theatres.
Pretty much everything started life as a lightweight fighter optimised for mid altitude performance in a turning fight and ended up prioritising either range, rate of climb firepower, or high altitude speed. Also the engagements tended to move to favour the vertical (altitude) component over pure agility, this is even true in the Pacific where Hellcats could not live with a Zero in a turning fight but were able to dominate due to their ability to dictate the engagement based on vertical performance.
Also I wouldn't put much emphasis on flexibility as countries did what they needed making the best use of their designs and manufacturing capability at the time. The US never needed to adapt a P51 into a high altitude bomber destroyer so it didnt do it, but it doesnt mean it couldn't have been done. The UK largely stuck with modifying the Spitfire rather than entirely switch to developing newer designs I guess mainly due to manufacturing reasons.
Just on the Hurricane construction - it wasn't wood and canvas in the way earlier things were, it was a metal construction similar to box girders to give the structural rigidity with wooden formers and stringers used to create the shape around that metal structure, a sort of half way house, a very good design at a time of transition.
Pretty much everything started life as a lightweight fighter optimised for mid altitude performance in a turning fight and ended up prioritising either range, rate of climb firepower, or high altitude speed. Also the engagements tended to move to favour the vertical (altitude) component over pure agility, this is even true in the Pacific where Hellcats could not live with a Zero in a turning fight but were able to dominate due to their ability to dictate the engagement based on vertical performance.
Also I wouldn't put much emphasis on flexibility as countries did what they needed making the best use of their designs and manufacturing capability at the time. The US never needed to adapt a P51 into a high altitude bomber destroyer so it didnt do it, but it doesnt mean it couldn't have been done. The UK largely stuck with modifying the Spitfire rather than entirely switch to developing newer designs I guess mainly due to manufacturing reasons.
Just on the Hurricane construction - it wasn't wood and canvas in the way earlier things were, it was a metal construction similar to box girders to give the structural rigidity with wooden formers and stringers used to create the shape around that metal structure, a sort of half way house, a very good design at a time of transition.
Pan Pan Pan said:
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.
Theory is fine but on the day you have what you have...Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Tuesday 19th June 22:12
tight5 said:
Messerschmitt Bf 109 ?
The Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring German fighter aces of World War II, who claimed 928 victories among them.
More of these built than any other fighter (34,852),
and 3rd on the "most produced" list behind
I would take a early Fw190 over Bf109 in a combat mission, given how fragile liquid cool engine, and the narrow angle outward retracting landing gearThe Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring German fighter aces of World War II, who claimed 928 victories among them.
More of these built than any other fighter (34,852),
and 3rd on the "most produced" list behind
- 2 Ilyushin Il-2 (36,183) and
- 1 Cessna 172 (44,000+)
But again, i think it is very difficult to define the best, different time of the war different countries have different doctrines
Kccv23highliftcam said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
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.
Theory is fine but on the day you have what you have...I read somewhere that on average a B17 could on average tolerate 20 hits from 20mm shells, but only 4 from 30mm.
kurokawa said:
tight5 said:
Messerschmitt Bf 109 ?
The Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring German fighter aces of World War II, who claimed 928 victories among them.
More of these built than any other fighter (34,852),
and 3rd on the "most produced" list behind
I would take a early Fw190 over Bf109 in a combat mission, given how fragile liquid cool engine, and the narrow angle outward retracting landing gearThe Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring German fighter aces of World War II, who claimed 928 victories among them.
More of these built than any other fighter (34,852),
and 3rd on the "most produced" list behind
- 2 Ilyushin Il-2 (36,183) and
- 1 Cessna 172 (44,000+)
But again, i think it is very difficult to define the best, different time of the war different countries have different doctrines
A few high scoring Luftwaffe unit commanders actually kept one of each at readiness and took whichever one best suited the incoming threat.
Fw190A versions wasn't great at high altitude fighter vs fighter combat and most of the experienced Luftwaffe Experten preferred the 109 in this regard (unless they had access to a Dora late in the war of course) but the Fw190A were much better at low and medium altitudes. Thus they jump in the Fw190 if meeting incoming low level RAF Circus ops and later post D-Day USAAF 9th AF and RAF Typhoon ops.
They use the 109 if combating a USAAF high level bomber raid with escort fighters, where the better higher altitude performance and small size of the 109 had an advantage in the hands of an experienced pilot.
Of course the Sturmblock modified Fw190's were created specifically to attack the USAAF 4-engined bomber streams, which they were ideally suited for, but at the expense of an easier target for the escorting USAAF fighters.
I think it's nigh on impossible to say which was the best of WW2, as already mentioned.
Fascinating stuff.
Either way it is rather odd that some planes are closer to peoples hearts and a lot of certain brands stay around.
There are not many 109's or 190's, probably coz I imagine they were torched under some post war agreement, but even so it's rather sad that relics from such a monumental period are not original. Or very few are still with us.
Who wouldn't love to see some of the old German stuff flying now.
Either way it is rather odd that some planes are closer to peoples hearts and a lot of certain brands stay around.
There are not many 109's or 190's, probably coz I imagine they were torched under some post war agreement, but even so it's rather sad that relics from such a monumental period are not original. Or very few are still with us.
Who wouldn't love to see some of the old German stuff flying now.
tight5 said:
Messerschmitt Bf 109 ?
The Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring German fighter aces of World War II, who claimed 928 victories among them.
More of these built than any other fighter (34,852),
and 3rd on the "most produced" list behind
More built because they kept getting shot down, possibly?The Bf 109 was flown by the three top-scoring German fighter aces of World War II, who claimed 928 victories among them.
More of these built than any other fighter (34,852),
and 3rd on the "most produced" list behind
- 2 Ilyushin Il-2 (36,183) and
- 1 Cessna 172 (44,000+)
chunder27 said:
Who wouldn't love to see some of the old German stuff flying now.
I'm old enough to have seen Black 6 flying back in the 1990's, which was the first time a pretty much all original combat veteran Luftwaffe aircraft had flown for 40 odd years or more.An amazing sight and sound (that blower whine ) when I saw it make its public flying debut at Duxford back in Sept 1991 in the capable hands of Dave Southwood.
The Fw190A that is owned and operated by Paul Allen's FHC in Seattle is probably more than 75% original having been found in a northern Russian forest in a remarkably intact and preserved condition back in 1989 untouched from when it forced landed there in 1943.
As found in 1989:
As it is flying today:
There are two early Me109E's currently flying that have been rebuilt from similar crash landed finds in Russia, but both contain a lot more new build structure/components than the FHC Fw190 which was remarkably intact, even an amount of it's original skin surfaces were able to be retained in the restoration...!!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff